Shield Of The Phantom
Posted on
January 26, 2026 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Well, we gave it a go.
It seems that it’s fine to farm important judgments out to mysterious shadowy figures who just make important chunks of them up out of thin air, and then issue them in your own name. Back in your boxes, plebs.
This is exactly the (non)answer we all expected.
The SNP specializes in this kind of coverup.
FOI for the correspondence between the judge and t shadow? Possibly protected as legal advice. At least you gave it a go whilst our supposed journalistic hero’s drank the koolaid.
That’s a bloody insulting response.
Well colour me surprised!
The establishment truly are beyond shame or embarrassment now.
Thanks for your continued efforts, Stuart.
Down graded to (mild concerns) rather than about following the law of human judgement and intellect.
It’s just your everyday institutional corruption
I bet you emailed them on one of the four days of the week they don’t work.
No wonder they were livid!
Welcome to “The Colony”.
What we see in this trite, arrogant, up-its-ain-erse, dismissive, and pompous wee fart of a response to a perfectly reasonable and civil query is the colonial brush-off.
The Glasgow President of Employment Tribunals’ response also has that passive aggressive “How dare you challenge your imperial master” flavour about it.
Yet more proof that we Scots are irrelevant in our own country and are at best a cheap and barely tolerated colonial workforce… at worst imperial property, chattel, to be used, abused and discarded in whatever way our coloniZer sees fit.
Comment #8!
A new record!
Spot on, Northcode.
I forgot to mention earlier that due to the scrapping of double jeopardy,some in the COPFS would have pursued Alex Salmond if still living to get a guilty verdict.
How many illegal “Scotland Acts” have led up to this sad point of the deterioration of law in Scotland.
When the Great Britain parliament or the United kingdom parliament are not in a 1707 treaty of union with Scotland to pass legislation of the English crown courts and tribunals on to Scotland?
Get your head wrapped around that piece of propaganda illegal jargon from Westminster and law in Scotland ( Scots law) re- asserts its self.
These parties of injustices for Scotland would be dismissed and recognised as faux judgements and trials.
An absolute outrage of a response.
No one, and I mean no one can have any confidence in the integrity of the Scottish judicial system.
This Judge Kemp has been shown to be a liar. Not the characteristics of a judge one has to say. Caught with his trousers well and truly round his ankles this response from the President confirms that malfeasance in office is perfectly OK.
Rule of law. Or rule of the jungle. And Walker has just shown she is part of it. Rotten to the core.
Aye.
“This Judge Kemp has been shown to be a liar”
=========
That is too strong. Less diligent than his high responsibilities demand ,certainly and ignorant of the perils of AI hallucinations.
On the second point I cannot be too harsh since I myself only discovered the phenomenon of AI hallucination a few months ago. Although I use AI very rarely, I have encountered hallucination twice.
How would they like it if someone smeared pholadelelphia cream cheese all over there tea shirts.
NB someone NOT sonebidy
My goodness, what an appallingly dismissive response. “No we won’t look again nor think again nor do anything whatsoever to uphold the standards of the law.”
The Kemp judgment was based on information from “an other” who apparently made a right mess, deliberately or otherwise, in selecting material for the guidance of Kemp.
Is there really no way to bring the judiciary to book?
It appears not.
Sandie Peggie’s team are appealing, but I’m not at all sure they can appeal the substance, but, rather, the way in which the evidence appears to have been skewed, conceding part of the evidence against the NHS Board but not against the other person in the case. Much the same happened in the Darlington nurses’ case – a partial concession in favour of the nurses.
I think the Peggie case is going to run and run, or, at least, its aftermath. If the SG interfered, it has not yet learned the lesson and will receive a bloody nose again and again until it does. The ‘woke’/’trans’ lobbies may be powerful, but blatant partiality by the judiciary cannot be acceptable – particularly against working-class nurse with a previous unblemished and impeccable record.
It is the substance of the judgement that is so egregious, not minor clerical errors, and that goes to the very heart of the judgement which, when you read all the evidence available, comes down firmly on the ‘trans’ side – which means that someone was not being impartial. The knock-on effect on tribunal decisions and even decisions made in the higher courts will be brought into question now because people feel that not even the judiciary is above reproach where ‘woke’/’trans’ are concerned. The process is the punishment, as the various women’s groups concede, but you can push people too far.
The For Women Scotland case against the SG on the matter of men in the female prison estate will be a test of the judiciary’s impartiality and its ability to dodge political and ideological interference. The TRAs will double down because this was the first infiltration prior to infiltrating every public and many private institutions. The Scottish courts have seen more action in the past ten years than in the hundred before them, almost.
Undernoted is a link to a Hersld article by Kevin McKenna on the persistent problem of public bodies in Scotland delaying, obstructing and refusing to disclose information.
Its an interesting synopiscof where we are and provides insight into various cases where public information has been withheld.
link to archive.ph
As readers can see information from the NHS Fife Heslth and the Sandie Peggie case has been repeatedly mis-stated and withheld.
The article also raises the grave concern as to who is actually directing this and questions the probity of the relationships between the Health Board and government politicians.
In so many ways the article confirms what we all suspect, and or know , which is that the Government and public bodies dissemble, lie and withhold.
A thoroughly rotten culture that is sanctioned from the top down.
But as the recent letter from President Walker to Stu Campbell shows re judge Kemp and the integrity of the judiciary, Scotland is a rotten burgh.
Welcome to the New Scotland of limited self Government run by The SNP!!
Who nneds thatcher eh?
An interesting point, lothianlad.
When we consider that Sturgeons idol WAS, in fact, Thatcher.
And then when we consider the pathology of narcissism and sociopathy, and how perps spend their entire lives honing their abusive skills . . . learning from masters in the art of manipulation and deceit, we can now see how Kim (NK) might learn a trick or two from Scotlands’ duplicitous cunts.
North Code,
But that imperialsm and Scotland may be a Colony can be challenged on a legal bases because non of the judical system including tribunals systems under “Scotland Acts ” are legal even if Westminster was acting as the parliament of England, and not the parliament of Great Britain or the parliament of United kingdom.
Because Scotland only holds a treaty with the parliament of England ,
For that to stand or hold any legal bases then the original parliament of Scotland also has to exist just like Englands,
Not the Scotland Acts parliament set up by the parliament of Great Britain which Scotland holds no treaty with at date in time.
All the political down south and up here in Scotland have shied away from the truth over law and the fact that Scotland never made a treaty with the parliament of Great Britain or the UK parliament in 1707,
They, I am sure of it Know of this lie,
But persist in hoping Scotland does not,
The English Westminster parliament does not gain the kingdom territory of Scotland in the 1707 Treaty of union.
That claim was concluded and presumed by the parliament of Great Britain that holds no such treaty with Scotland.
Sarah.
Other sources,
As is the 1707 Treaty of Union between Scotland and…the Great Britain parliament
They think up any law or supposed imaginary law even if it is incorrect or illegal. As long as they can sell the lie and someone buys into it.
Not surprised or disappointed! Professional people never turn on each other, the get the less fortunate to do it for them.
I ask the question, is holyrood a benefit for the Scots? To be honest I’m more concerned about the SNP getting another 5 years in power than I am about Trump’s remaining three.
When we talk about Independence in 2013 it was something nice it was building on something that wasn’t little England I’m sorry to say this but I’m really glad we never got Independence in 2014 and as long as the SNP is alive I hope we never do.
You’re hardly 100%Yes then, are you?
One thing is certain Scotland will never become Independent by the hands of the SNP and I’ll be my house on that so I don’t need to worry.
It very much looking like Reform will win the next Holyrood election and if I had been Swinney I most certainly would have made 2026 about Independence and included all Indy parties and he hasn’t, he chose Sturgeon and the Union over Scotland and the Scots a mistake that will cost Scotland and Scots.
If the SNP ever won Independence it would be the SNP running Holyrood with England still pulling all the strings and would be Independence in name only.
Independence with the SNP in charge what a scary thought, who’d want to sleep again after that, here comes Freddy.
@bobo bunny,
The National still has the offer of 1 years subscription for £20, just think you’ll be able to read what Swinney intends to do after May 2026 and his ambitions to be FM until 2031.
Enjoy!
The law in and of Scotland goes much deeper than what Stu is contending with,
As we have to ascertain where that laws in Scotland derive from.
The parliament of England.
The parliament of Great Britain.
The parliament of UK
the original parliament of Scotland.
Or the “Scotland Acts ” parliament by legislation of Westminster parliament of Englands Great Britain parliament,
For the original Scottish parliament only made a 1707 treaty recognised internationally with the original Parliament of England,
No other.
Aw well it’s nae big deal there’s nothing happening with Scottish politics just now anyway
I wish there was some way we could maybe elect some people who might fight against this corrupt pish
Or maybe we could just keep voting for the SCUM who organise these corrupt organisations and ignore any challenges to their authority
Or better still let’s just stay in the vile union and elect wee nige and let him destroy HR and give our SNHS to his american millionaire pals
“elect wee nige and let him destroy HR and give our SNHS to his american millionaire pals”
You’ve got in a disparaging reference there, Twat H, so well done, that’s 10% chipped off support for Reform in Scotland in just one afternoon.
As for destroying HR, plenty of staunch Indy supporters say “Bring it on!” Considering the entire point of HR was to wreck Indy, maybe they’re the smart ones, eh?
Regarding the sanctity of the SNHS, there are other forms of health care, somewhere in the middle of our own dis-functional, un-affordable state religion, and the worst excesses of the Yanks.
You should get out more, visit abroad, see how they do health care in other European countries that don’t have an NHS. You’d perhaps discover their streets aren’t hoaching with the dead and dying, and that for many medical conditions, their outcomes are actually quite a bit better than ours.
“6b: it is about a judicial decision, or judicial case management.”
So, making up stories to support a ‘judicial decision’ can never be misconduct.
Good to know.
Would it be OK to give evidence in the same way?
This clause seems engineered to prevent complaints over judicial case conduct – presumably means it can be included in an appeal though ?
Time to start burning things down, and blowing shit up.
Crash course in Arabic (focus on water features) and a chequered T towel and you’ll be ready to rock n’ roll.
I have flip flops, so I’m good to go…
Or we could walk away legally not being in a 1707 treaty of union with neither the UK parliament or the parliament of Great Britain,
And I agree we did not know enough of our own status in 2014, but many a conversation has been held and debated along with multiple people adding to that knowledge since that time passed in 2014,
Nowadays I am not so sure that Scotland needs to beg England for a section 30 from the UK parliament or the Great Britain parliament,
Seeing as there is no 1707 treaty with either one of those two parliament and Scotland,
Salvo research has added to this information, and many others that recognise the Colony position of Scotland at present without those supposed treaties with GB and the UK parliaments,
We are under a deliberate falsified illusion of union with parliaments that we never made treaties with and what that means to Scotlands independence, territory realm, land , sea, and all Scotlands laws,
The SNP and other political parties and the crown courts and tribunals all sit percariously in Scotland.
these issues with Scotland and its not people not knowing or realising the truth of fabrication of who it is actually in a treaty with results in Stu receiving the kind of nonchalant replies he is getting from the pretend governance over Scotland.
“We are under a deliberate falsified illusion”
Never a truer word, James. Now define “We”.
“we could walk away legally”
I’m assuming that’s the same “We”. Let me know when the legal walking away is due to start.
“I want to be … in that number”.
The confidence tricksters posing as a judicial system are using a blackout curtain for transparency.
A response such as this should be classed as a criminal offence.
Looks like they have been copying Trump by just barging over the top of injustice and accountability before burying it.
Although I’m hacked off with much that SNP have been doing Farage is never an option as some say above. This is the man who is financed by billionaires to get us out of a Europe that was looking to clamp down on tax avoidance and money laundering.
Brexit has proved to be a disaster and those behind it as outright liars.
Farage has previously pledged to reduce Scotlands budget and look at more privatised health services no doubt with his pal Trump standing in the wings with his pen in hand.
Scotland isn’t a fascist country we haven’t even voted Tory in 75 years.
Vote for any English party and you keep Scotland as a second class colony owned by Westminster.
If you vote for them you can say goodbye forever to free further education, prescriptions, road and bridge tolls, hospital parking and personal care.
Just a few little X’s you can have all these benefits removed and another 15 years of austerity, credit crunch and recession.
I realise that teaching you to sing a new dirge is as impossible as teaching an old dog new tricks, but WTF.
The problem with statements such as:
“financed by billionaires to get us out of a Europe …
Brexit has proved to be a disaster and those behind it as outright liars”
Is that they can be re-written with just as much truth as:
“financed by billionaires to get us out of the UK …
Indy will prove to be a disaster and those behind it as outright liars”
As for all the free stuff you list, the simple fact that all the grafting and tax paying is going to have to be done by immigrants means that they will take an increasingly dim view of entitled geriatrics expecting to live for free off their sweat.
I can see you’re kept awake at night by nightmares of Trump and Farage. Although you claim to desperately want things to change, you simultaneously desperately want to stop anybody who might change things.
That’s because subconsciously, you realise a fairer and more equitable country will have to stop mollycoddling the useless eaters.
“Although I’m hacked off with much that SNP have been doing”
May is getting nearer, and you will go out and vote for your tribe yet again. How could you not?
Effijy;
Well said.
It wasn’t Europe who planted unwanted nuclear bombs next to Scotland’s largest city or who have leeched our wealth and resources for decades. We know who it was.
The Yoon agents here attempt to play it down but Fish Face is on record saying;
“…the NHS is unaffordable and must be replaced by a USA style insurance-based model…”
and
“…the Scots negotiated a canny deal but we will overhaul the Barnett formula…”
And there are bad actors on here daily shilling for the c*nt.
Vote ISP/Liberate Scotland.
Independence, and EFTA, ta very much.
The NHS in its current form is unaffordable, James. The only reason you think it is affordable is because you contribute SFA to keeping it going.
As for EFTA, a cursory glance at the rules surrounding it shows Scotland will have to dig deep to join. We’ll be leeched of our wealth and resources every bit as much as we are now. Them’s the rules.
Sorry to hear you don’t want the nuclear “bombs”. Maybe we should have a vote or referendum about that. As Europe is increasingly being threatened with nuclear annihilation by the increasingly belligerent Orcs, it may well be that sober, serious Scots will think this is not a good time to be unilaterally disarming. Even the progressive, socialist, Nordic-admiring Scots will be mulling over Sweden’s ongoing dialogue about building their own nuclear weapons.
My advice is that you should stay in your comfort zone, James, and stick to the playground name calling. You only succeed in making yourself look even more pathetic when you try to do serious.
You’re on drugs, right?
Or is this supposed to be some half-arsed parody?
Keep posting, it’s comedy gold – the gift that keeps on giving.
“Nicola Sturgeon MUST be called to give evidence about deadly super hospital as she dodges scrutiny
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar wants the Hospitals Inquiry to reopen evidence sessions – and call Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Shona Robison to give evidence.
The Hospitals Inquiry didn’t call any of the leadership team at the time to be grilled by lawyers despite the Scottish Government being heavily involved in the project to build the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital.”
——————————————
I believe that is a perfectly reasonable request.
It is.
They will obfuscate, though.
There’s a part of my mind that still can’t fully understand how government business was/is conducted on a social communication app: Whatsapp.
There’s so many layers of wrong in that alone.
And then there’s the rest of it.
No surprises there.
Thank you for pushing at the firmly closed door, Stu, cos nobody else would have. Now we all know, for sure, the door is not only closed, but LOCKED.
Just like everything else in the SG and their associated orgs.
CLOSED FOR BUSINESS due to calcification of morals, mind and heart.
Just watched a political broadcast from the Scottish Greens, no mention of transgender or Independence, not surprised.
What I will say is it was well thought out and delivered. The SNP is in real trouble having no money to compete these other parties who do.
I think you may be right, Rev. Had Kemp used AI, or listened to his two lay colleagues, he would have checked the findings. However, if he had received it from a ‘judicial source’, he might have waved it through because he had assumed that that person knew the law in this area better than he did.
What if that judicial colleague was, indeed, a TRA? That is the only thing that makes any sense in all of this because that judgement was chock-full of ‘errors’ all landing on the ‘trans’ side, i.e. Stonewall Law applied. That would make the ‘errors’ deliberate so that Nurse Peggie’s case was seen to be lacking in compassion and legal integrity when the opposite was actually the case.
If this ‘judicial colleague’ turns out to be a TRA in the legal profession, it will take a FoI to winkle him or her out of his or her shell and face the light of exposure. It is, apparently okay for a judge or lawyer of any kind to seek the advice of a colleague, but, in this case, the ‘errors’ are so numerous and so heinously against the actual law that it will reflect very badly on the Tribunals body, and on the President of that body, to deny clarity. Judge Kemp is also concealing the identity of the colleague whose advice he sought. If this person was not impartial, all of them have questions to answer.
If Judge Kemp did not consult a ‘judicial colleague’, why did he say he did? If he used AI, why not admit that because almost everyone uses it nowadays? The underlying problem for him in both instances is that neither source was impartial, but came down on the side of the ‘trans’ lobby. The established law was flouted in favour of Stonewall law, and that is the real miscarriage of justice.
Off topic probably.
So when is Starmers Rent Boys Trial? Will we ever see one?
I guess the days when it was only the Brit Liberals that employed Rent Boys are long gone? The Wokes are silent on this. Why am i not surprised?
Does Burnham sniff blood in the water?
Perhaps the purpose of the judgement was to try to delay the resolution of the issue of safe spaces for biological women in the workplace? Perhaps this couldn’t be achieved legitimately so it was done by producing a flawed judgement, in the full knowledge that the case could be appealed but that such an appeal would be expensive, potentially unaffordable, and, in any case, could be made to take an inordinately long period of time, thus delaying the likely avalanche of further litigation that is very likely to follow the Peggie case? Why would a tribunal judge make such gross errors unless they were being leaned on by someone with a vested interest in delaying the potential avalanche of litigation? If so, who did the leaning, and were they the source of the erroneous quotations? If not, what other plausible explanations might there be for these gross errors?
You make excellent points, Colin. The thing is: if there was political interference, it has not served whoever did it, has it? The situation is now worse. I’m not saying you’re wrong because the same thing happened with the Salmond case. Gross errors and gross miscarriage of justice. If anyone wanted to use the ‘errors’ as an impetus for forcing through legislation and avoid the ire of the ‘trans’ lobby, yes, maybe. You could be right, but I would lean towards ‘trans’ interference of some sort. The Tribunal’s president needs to get off her bahookie and start explaining, otherwise it will be a gross miscarriage of justice and another court case because the judgement would have to be considered separately and not as part of the appeal.
Colin, your point about a deliberately flawed judgement makes sense and seems very likely to be true.
“ Why would a tribunal judge make such gross errors?”
Use Occam’s Razor.
The simplest explanation is that the “judicial colleague” whom Kemp consulted, lazily passed him duff material generated by AI.
You’re likely right about that, Cynicus, but that’s not the main issue.
The main issue is that an obvious mistake was made and the legal profession are closing ranks by refusing to rectify it.
However, because it is the legal profession, we have to acknowledge that this is the way they work. There’s a lot of money to be made by many of them, rectifying this error through the “correct channels”.
Rev Stu sending them an email, while commendable, did not utilise the correct channels. No money stood to be made, and hence nothing was or will be done.
When this finally gets sorted out, as I am confident it will be, many in the legal profession will have banked a year or so’s income from sorting it out. Very likely, much of the cash to pay them will have come from taxpayers, which as we all know is an inexhaustible resource, and hence, everybody will be happy.
The victims will have won through to final justice, at the usual cost of blighted careers, lost income, ravaged mental health, etc.
The politicians will be effectively blameless, lessons will be learned, etc. etc.
The layers will have augmented their pension funds and be another year closer to enjoying them.
Of course, we could elect a disruptor as leader. Somebody who is impatient with legal obfuscation and pettifoggery, with time wasting, foot dragging and endless appeals. Somebody who dispatches his agents onto the street, to immediately apply the law as it stands, with deaf ears to the special pleading and the heart breaking sob stories.
But then, the usual suspects on here would be scweaming about that too.
“The main issue is that an obvious mistake was made…..”
======
Should not the second word in the above statement have a capital “M”?
What you really mean to say is, “the broader issue I want to talk about” not “Cynicus’ straightforward answer to a simple question.”
That still does not explain why the errors were not simply random, but every one landed spot on the ‘trans’ side. Nah, it was deliberate, I think, as everything that this ideology and its proponents do is deliberate, such as the skewing of language. I am amazed that people are still arguing about the ‘woke’/’trans’ intentions – which are to overturn societal norms in order to weaken the society and bring about its downfall. The men in frocks are just the vanguard and foot soldiers, those who support them are the useful idiots. We should be looking to see just who is actually behind it all.
We are dying here, in Scotland and the UK, and in the rest of the West and, although other factors can be highlighted, too, nothing as destructive (ideologically) as this has ever been seen before. Everyone with a clear eye is firm on that. It has become a battle now for survival of ‘Western values’ – which just means democracy and its offshoots. These people want to herald in a totalitarian regime, and most people just will not or cannot see it. Now, it’s the turn of the judiciary and legal system to be attacked. Every institution that holds up our society is under attack by this pernicious ideology.
It is no use bemoaning the now possible fall of the judiciary and legal system because it has been one of the last to fall. If there has been political interference in the judiciary and legal system, they need to be challenged, as the separation of powers will also fall and politicisation of the state will be complete: first, the prisons; then, the NHS and the local authorities; then the judiciary and legal system. For anyone interested, this was exactly how both Stalin and Hitler operated to turn their respective countries into totalitarian states, one using communism and the other fascism.
That may be true, but, if you know anything about AI, it will try to find the answers to that which you have asked. For example: how do I go about ensuring that the ‘trans’ lobby comes out looking relatively clean? Answer: fiddle the statistics, case notes, etc., and apply Stonewall law. AI spews out according to that which you put in, Cynicus. If it had been asked to give an answer that reflected the actual law, it would have given a judgement far less ‘trans’-oriented and more balanced, but would have had to acknowledge the UKSC ruling which would have entirely scuppered the Health Board’s case. It did not, if, indeed, it did give the judgement, so 1. a TRA supplied the advice or, 2. AI did, with a TRA feeding it information. Nothing else makes sense.
The other point is that, while crimes of voyeurism and flashing are still on the legal books, the man here, and in the Darlington nurses’ case. was not held to account at all, as if the law does not apply to them as individuals. You would have had to have been buried in the wastes of Siberia not to know that the law was being flouted. The TRAs know exactly what they are doing, and some of them must be lurking in the legal establishment.
link to crowdjustice.com
You are correct Colin 100%.
This is outrageous. Is there no one with power and prominence within the political and judicial system to challenge this woman and her very strange behaviour regarding a very serious breach of the law. Strange also that the press remain silent on the issue although maybe not.
Left once again to the rev.
Zero accountability in the Banana Republic that is the SNP’s Scotland.
Only thing to do…kick the B***ARDS OUT!
Banana Republic you say RK and it wouldnt be a quip too far to opine that a banna republic is maybe something we should aspire to.
To most it is very clear. Judge issues judgement. In the judgement there is fictitious dictum. When challenged about how it happened Judge says mistake made by AI
However in response, concerned retired solicitor makes formal complaint to Tribunal President and to which it is confirmed that fictitious quotations came from an named judicial colleague. This raises more concerns. First it makes judge Kemp out to be a liar. Second it raises the concern as to who actually wrote the fictitious inclusions and what part they played in Kemp’s work. Kemp after all was supposed to be the judge.
Thereafter Rev Stu raises formal letter expressing concern and asking for answers and to which this receives the response of effectively nothing to answer,feck off.
Now, to me at least, and to many, this is worse than a banana Republic. Scotland is supposed to have a rule of law that is well founded and honest. But it is a veneer because as this instance shows the judiciary, and I include more than Kemp here, systemically lie and dissemble with wanton impunity.
At least in a Bannana Republic people know it for what it is. Here we have the insidiousness of a rotten judiciary masquerading as something that holds itself accountable to no one.
This goes all the way to the top. Time the sty was cleaned.
I was worried I might have missed something, so I just did a quick check of my loose change.
Yup! We live in a banana monarchy.
Hardly surprising really, when we consider that the Kingdom Of Scotland existed virtually unbroken for near 9 centuries until 1707.
But all jesting aside, throwaway comments about banana republics reveal the conceited entitlement of so many in the Indy movement who are not at all interested in Scotland’s unique culture, heritage and history.
Just in enforcing a different, foreign culture that more nearly aligns with their own personal prejudices.
The modern Scotland that everybody on here always claims to care so much about has always been a constitutional monarchy.
Suck it up.
Hatey said;
“the Kingdom Of Scotland existed virtually unbroken for near 9 centuries until 1707.”
Not so, Hatey. According to the Lords Privileges Committee in 1999, the Kingdom Of Scotland is still a formal legal entity today. This is because its sovereignty, constitution, and legal and judicial systems were never ceded in 1707, and nothing in the Treaty asserts that any of these were.
Xaracen
You’ve accomplished the remarkable fact of agreeing with and even augmenting my claim whilst simultaneously avoiding acknowledging what it is.
But no biggie. I accept your correction that to my near 9 centuries we must add another 3+.
So, for 1200 years, give or take, up to the present day, Scotland has been a constitutional monarchy.
I’m guessing the republican boy who never did learn to write “Scotland” right must have choked on a banana.
Of course that isn’t true at all Xaracen, in any way shape or form, the Lords Privilege Committee never said that or anything in any way remotely like that.
Aidan said;
“Of course that isn’t true at all Xaracen, in any way shape or form, the Lords Privilege Committee never said that or anything in any way remotely like that.”
You need to read better!
Perhaps you’ll be able to provide us with the specific explicit text from the Lords Privileges Committee on which says “the Kingdom Of Scotland is still a formal legal entity today. This is because its sovereignty, constitution, and legal and judicial systems were never ceded in 1707, and nothing in the Treaty asserts that any of these were”.
Of course we won’t get that, we’ll get the Lord’s committee said X which means Y and therefore A, B and C, where X and Y have no relationship to each other and A B C is a load of invented nonsense with no basis in law anywhere.
Like I said!
From APPENDIX 2
Case for the Lord Gray
.
.
.
36 Firstly, its purpose so far as Scotland is concerned is to secure representation for Scotland in the Upper House. Such need for that as there was in 1707, necessarily remains unchanged, so long as (a) the Kingdoms of Scotland and England continue to be acknowledged by the law to be distinct entities, and (b) the House of Lords continues to have a function in the passage of legislation for Scotland.
.
.
.
Firstly “acknowledged by the law to be separate entities” does not mean separate legal entities with legal personality.
Secondly, and most seriously, that isn’t the opinion of the committee. It is an argument made by Richard Keen QC to the committee.
I’d refer you to the ACTUAL opinion of the committee:
“Mr. Keen’s argument was based on the alternative proposition that, although the treaty was spent when Scotland and England ceased to exist as separate states upon their merger into the new state of Great Britain, the Union Agreement continues to have effect as fundamental law in that new state with the result that, in regard to certain provisions which were entrenched by that Agreement, the United Kingdom Parliament does not enjoy unlimited sovereignty”
And
“But, as the law of nations in international law is concerned only with states, and the states or kingdoms of Scotland and England ceased to exist on 1 May 1707, the Treaty became an executed, or spent, treaty on that date as by the merger the obligants under the treaty had ceased to exist”
Do you think either of those statements are ambiguous?
You’re still avoiding the point, Aidan. Keen’s statement was not a blog comment, it was a legal submission.
It states plainly that “the Kingdoms of Scotland and England continue to be acknowledged by the law to be distinct entities”. That is a present-tense legal characterisation made by a senior QC in a formal submission to a formal parliamentary body deciding an important point of constitutional law.
You don’t get to hand-wave that away.
Your attempt to claim that “acknowledged by the law to be distinct entities” somehow doesn’t count because it isn’t phrased in terms of “legal personality” is an egregious category error. Keen was making a constitutional point. Sovereign constitutional entities are not companies. The Kingdom of Scotland’s constitutional identity is expressed through its Crown, its legal system, its jurisdiction, and its entrenched institutions. Those are the relevant legal characteristics, and they are what Keen was referring to. Your objection is therefore irrelevant.
Scotland is a constitutional entity, not a corporate one.
I see no rejection by the committee of Mr Keen’s assertion in your first cited paragraph. It is merely a short recap of his argument. Clearly, he disputes the authenticity of the UK parliament’s unlimited sovereignty. He is correct to do so, and your quoted segment contains no denial or refutation of his position.
Your second quotation is about international law, not domestic constitutional law. The fact that the Treaty ceased to be an international treaty after 1707 does not mean it ceased to have constitutional force. Every constitutional lawyer in the UK accepts that the Treaty of Union remains the foundational constitutional instrument of the state. And ‘spent’ in international law does not mean ‘void’ or ‘irrelevant’ in domestic law.
The committee’s aside about ‘obligants’ ceasing to exist is inaccurate, because neither kingdom ceded its sovereignty, constitution, legal system, or territorial jurisdiction. Those institutions continued to operate, and still do. That is precisely why Keen could state, without contradiction, that the two kingdoms remain distinct entities acknowledged by law.
The UK Parliament cannot claim ‘unlimited parliamentary sovereignty’ because that doctrine belonged exclusively to the pre-1707 English Parliament. Nothing in the Treaty preserved it, transferred it, or extended it over Scotland. And Scotland certainly did not cede its sovereignty to England’s MPs.
So we come back yet again to the point you keep dodging:
Show me the explicit texts in the Treaty of Union where Scotland unambiguously agreed to:
1. cede its sovereignty to England or its MPs in the new parliament;
2. accept single-headcount voting as the means for determining formal outcomes of legislative debates;
3. permit England’s MPs the right to overrule Scotland’s MPs on any matter of the joint governance of the Union.
If you cannot produce those texts, and to date you haven’t, then your entire argument is empty.
You cannot pass off counsels argument on behalf of a private party into a judicial committee as if it were the opinion of the committee itself, that is dishonest and ridiculous. Counsel do not provide an objective statement of the law in those circumstances, they present an argument that favours the position or interests of their client (as will the other side) and it is then for the judiciary to decide between those arguments (or to potentially reject both).
Equally, I suppose we are now supposed to gloss over the fact that you are NOW saying that in fact the committee got it wrong (because, as usual, they didn’t affirm your own view) meaning that we can add Lord Hope of Craighead to the very long list of prominent jurists who disagree with you whilst the list of jurists who support your view remains nil.
As an aside, the argument that Keen QC makes is compatible with yours, as if Scotlands MP’s remained sovereign then there would be no purpose for “fundamental law”, as Scotlands MP’s could give consent to any changes to the ToU and the constitution. The point he makes is that Englands MP’s cannot use their arithmetic advantage to alter fundamental aspects of the U.K. constitution that provide for Scotland, such as depriving Scottish representatives of the right to sit in parliament. That is the way that Scotland is recognised in the law, not as an independent sovereign state – a view which the privileges committee expressly and explicitly discounts.
@Aidan,
1. You said Keen was acting for a ‘private party’.
He wasn’t; he was representing the UK Government.
There is no interpretation here; your description is factually incorrect.
2. You presented this as an adversarial matter between competing clients.
The committee’s own documentation shows there was no opposing client, no rival submissions, and no judicial balancing of arguments. While several Lords made submissions, such as the Case for the Lord Gray, these were invited contributions to assist the committee’s understanding. They were not adversarial pleadings.
Your framing does not match the process that actually occurred.
3. You said I claimed the committee ‘got it wrong’.
What I actually said was that one aside in their reasoning, about ‘obligants’ ceasing to exist, was inaccurate.
That aside was not the basis of their finding, and the finding itself does not contradict any of my points.
I made no statement that the committee’s finding was wrong in any respect.
4. You said Keen’s argument implies that Scotland’s MPs could consent to any constitutional change.
That contradicts Scotland’s constitutional doctrine, where sovereignty lies with its people, and not merely their MPs.
It also ignores the practical reality that Scotland’s MPs can be overruled on any matter under current arrangements, in that they cannot withhold consent in any meaningful sense.
The committee did not address this point.
5. You said the committee ‘expressly and explicitly’ discounted Scotland’s constitutional status.
The report contains no such statement; it was beyond their remit. Your claim has no textual support.
Every one of your assertions collapses when compared with the actual record, your own wording, or the committee’s stated remit.
Okay so yet more lying, I honestly don’t know what you seek to gain out of saying things that are demonstrably untrue and which are easily checkable by anyone.
Richard Keen QC was not representing the government, he was representing a hereditary peer – Lord Gray, who was challenging the then governments changes to the House of Lord.
Secondly, there were opposing submissions made for the UK Government by the then HM Advocate for Scotland and two other barristers.
Thirdly, the text I quoted was not an “aside” it is a key fundamental part of the reasoning of Lord Hope. You clearly haven’t bothered to attempt to even understand the basic high-level facts or context of this case, instead you’re pulling specific phrases from various places whilst ignoring the legal arguments and reasoning in the case.
The judgement explicit states that Scotland does not remain a sovereign kingdom and there is no mention of this idea you’ve cooked up about Scotlands MP’s owning that sovereignty, and of course there is no use of the term “popular sovereignty” anywhere within it. The whole judgement sits in absolute contradiction to the invented legal concepts. I can only imagine the scale of divorce from reality to actually come out and say that Lord Hope, a man who has been Scotland’s most senior judge and deputy president of the Supreme Court is wrong because he contradicts YOUR opinion. Do you believe yourself to be some extremely high judicial authority?
From this article…
link to sanityunleashed.substack.com
The piece doesn’t just discuss Sandie Peggie’s ‘trial’, but the use of A.I. by law courts.
Of the judge using A.I:
‘The judge is either familiar with these distortions, or the AI has learned them. Either is not good.’
This is (one) of the quoted sections used in judgement:
… ‘regarding any crime, male to females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to females […] but not compared to males’
… ‘they retained male pattern regarding criminality’
‘The same was true regarding violent crime.’
The judge, his ‘assistant’, and A.I. had, somehow, managed to get this completely wrong. (By stating the exact opposite of the quote.)
It’s a mystery, so it is.
100 to 200 women die at the hands of men each year in the UK – considerably more than ‘trans’ identified men, but fewer than men, in general. “Trans’ identified men, according to the statistics, commit sexual offences, both lesser and greater, to a far greater degree than do men, in general. ‘Trans’ identified men show no lessening of male pattern violence. These statistics may be checked and verified, but they are factual. So, how does a machine manage to distort reality to that extent by turning everything on its head and, as I have said umpteen times, managed, strangely enough, to never apply the UKSC ruling (clarification) or any other law on sex-based rights and conventions? It should have been impossible to avoid them, but they were avoided or distorted to come down on the ‘trans’ side every time. No human input? I should cocoa.
We should not be so shocked that a colonial government and justice system oppresses the people and ignores their cries for justice.
For the main purpose of such institutions is ‘to keep the colonial racket going’:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Which confirms that the only remedy for the colonial condition is decolonization (i.e. independence) and liberation from oppression.
Difficult to define Scotland position on Constitution regards monarchy, Scotland as a republic Country does not seem to taken up the monarchy for centuries past,
However we do know that is a Constitution of England, as the parliament of England passed that in to their law in England in the bill of rights, as the law of England, prior to holding a 1707 treaty with Scotland.
And as mentioned repeatedly the GB or UK parliaments do not hold a 1707 treaty with Scotland.
And England parliament opted out of that Scotland – England treaty for 11 missing days in 1752.
Alf Baird,
It does however confirm the Colony condition that Scotland has been claiming and goes further into the new position of becoming a new Colony of AI errors State.
Until Scotland recognises it holds no treaty with the GB or UK parliaments these bias two tier sets of laws will continue as faux laws being implemented in Scotland.
Colour me twilight.
Nobody answerable to anybody.
Just do what you like and fuck the electorate.
We’re living in weird times.
Maybe we are just seeing the light.
Thanks Stu.
And while we are considering the matter of a lying dissembling judge and wider compromised judiciary where, o where, has the Court of Session judgement on the motion to dismiss Craig Murray’s petition to have a judicial review in favour of the English court.
The law Lord in summing up said that a decision would be given in one week avizandum. But we are still waiting.
Will he come out in favour of the Scottish Court and legal system being able to hear petitions in regard to Scottish citizens or will he find that an English court has the right to decide – and that the Scots legal rights and standing are extinguished.
The analysis of this case is simple. The argument is in essence very simple. English courts are superior and or preferred and Scottish Courts, are to be stood down in hearing Mr Murray’s petition for judicial review.
Lets hope the Judge rules in favour of Scotland and the Scottish people. Maybe he will, but given all the rest of the malfeasance now in the compromised political colonial system I fear for the worst.
But I live in hope.
Yer hope has been realised Willie, its just got the go-ahead.
Lets now see what legal acrobatics our imperial oppressor uses to justify its despotik actions imposed on sovereign Scots wha hiv oor ain constitution and rights tae protest, an muckle mair.
Oor Scottish Constitution, in Scots an Englis:
link to salvo.scot
“ The law Lord in summing up said that a decision would be given in one week avizandum. But we are still waiting.
======
The review CM’s petition will proceed. That will be seen as a step in the direction Craig wishes.
link to archive.ph
“2 hours ago
A judicial review of the ban on Palestine Action will be allowed to go ahead, a judge at Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.
Lord Young granted permission for the case to proceed with a procedural hearing on 23 February and a two-day substantive hearing on 17 and 18 March.”
Alf Baird,
It reads as I remembered,
But here lies the contention with the pretendy Scottish parliament changing the laws of Scotland against the will of the people and without consultation of the people,
The Victims and Justice Reform Act 2023, given royal assent by the king of England,
Scrapped 2024,
Reintroduced on 30th October 2025, given royal assent by the king of England for a second time in 2025.
It Abolishes Scots Law of Not Proven,
Lessens the amount of Jurors in Scotland.
And can hold Rape Trial without a Jury.
It can be seen that the faux Scottish parliament from “Westminster parliament -Scotland Act in England” are running roughshod over Scots laws. And the community of Scotlands Constitution,
And not one legal eagle has pointed out that Scotland in not in a 1707 treaty of union with the GB parliament or the united kingdom parliament for this to stand as legal.
They the legal teams of all kinds in Scotland do not appear to share a brain cell, never mind one each and are of lowly intellect.
Funding an English silver numbs their brains.
“the legal teams of all kinds in Scotland do not appear to share a brain”
Our gap in legal knowledge is very evident. Scots are sorely lacking in lawyers with competence in treaty making, having been ‘out of the game’ for a couple of centuries, our international persona being erased.
Scots lawyers also don’t appear to be aware of the still extant Scottish constitution/’claim of right’ and the fact it remains a fundamental ‘condition’ of the Treaty of Union – notwithstanding its frequent breaches.
Perhaps they are all so used to taking their instructions from someone in Whitehall?
“Our gap in legal knowledge is very evident. Scots are sorely lacking in lawyers with competence in treaty making”
Just between me and you, Alf, I’d avoid posting statements like that one online.
I’m confident the penny will drop if you take a step back and think things through.
If the community in Scotland are sovereign first in the Scottish constitution then it is up to the people all over Scotland to call the faux parliament in Scotland out or ignore the laws they are falsely passing as Scots law under the crown of England and given royal assent by the monarch of England,
As duely noted Scotland does not have a treaty with the Great Britain parliament in1707.
Or
UK parliament 1707.
The present problem in Scotland is us, all of us are pretending we have a Scottish parliament which for any political party that sits therein to change Scots laws through the back door corridor from England Westminster & monarch of England to repeal and making obsolete all Scots laws.
It is worthy of noting for a second time today that England altered its dates on a 1707 International recognised treaty in 1752.
Scotland did not change theirs altering the treaty as it had already signed the appropriate date in Scotland.
(England only) require this alteration to the treaty,
It not only voided the original treaty dates as signed between Scotland and England, but England missed 11 days out of its side of the 1707 treaty with Scotland.
The Great Britain parliament (Scotland Acts ) are a farce of deceit from beginning to the end.
Regarding the English courts being superior or prefered.
I have no legal training or experience but I can say for sure that the Scottish legal system and courts are superior,not just from serving on a jury,
During the recent progress of the witnesses and victims bill the main voices behind it supported bringing Scottish Justice into line with England (degrading it) by reducing the diversity of procedure and decision in an other nations system.
Even said that the people are idiots by claiming we don’t understand how The now removed not proven worked and disregarded that the larger jury would minimize bias or prejudice of an individual resulting in a fairer verdict
Fortunately 15 jurors remained and jury less trials did not proceed these must remain along with corroboration.
One of the people who was named on one of the replies to my letters was also qualified in English law and had worked down there I reckon this was preference to gain reward favour and position there.The individual could mention this on a future job application.
Also why did Kenny MacAskill approve the trial of the Glasgow airport attackers being held outside Scotland?
Woolwich Crown Court was intended to serve as a high-security courtroom and became the preferred venue for terrorism trials. A tunnel was established linking the court to the maximum-security HM Prison Belmarsh. This provided a secure route for bringing defendants in high-profile terrorist cases before the court.
Scottish Common Law, the oldest version, has been sidelined by statute, which is a very common English habit of introducing law. The problem with statutes is that they are so narrowly-defined that, when a loophole appears in one law, another has to be enacted to close it, hence all the messy business with men in women’s spaces. The Common Law was extremely – and still is – very adaptable to changing circumstances without recourse to endless debates and cross-debates, usually ending in legislation which is not fit for purpose. There is room for both kinds of law in Scotland, but we ape everything English. Sad to say, but it is true.
Today, the body of the last remaining hostage is finally home.
President Donald Trump gets a lot of stick from plenty of sources, sometimes rightly so, but I won’t be forgetting he was instrumental in making this happen.
Without his efforts many of the hostages, alive and dead, would still be underground, and the ham ass scum would still be using their own women and kids as human shields.
# Who’d be Hatey?
I take it the site troll is getting paid by the word as he knows a lot and is not afraid to use them just not in the right order. He is fishing which is trolling 101 saying something controversial in the hope he gets a reply so he can share more of his guff. Best just ignore the dolt.
Fit’s that ye say, Sooty? Why do James and Dave find it impossible to engage with the facts in my post?
Ah c’moan noo, Sooty! Even from a glove puppet, that’s a fucking daft question!
You can’t be asking seriously why James can’t engage with a subject of a post, I doubt he can even read it, they guys an abusive bloviating muppet!!
Aw, “Aidan”, look in the mirror, petal.
We’re talking about you not to you James, sit down.
“You can’t be asking seriously”
Wisnae me asking, Aidan, it wis Sooty.
And he’s a verra serious glove puppet.
At least, by comparison wi some o’ the jokers oan here!
I wouldn’t believe everything you hear from the BBC and GB News there known for lying and distorting the truth.
If you want enlightenment watch Al Jazeera.
Why’s that then, 100%Yes?
Are they claiming the hostages are a’ still undergroond somewhere?
Fit aboot the ham asses then? Are they aboot to declare a glorious victory? Is it actually Tel Aviv that’s a pile of smouldering rubble from end to end?
Gie us some links so we can all avail oorsels o the real truth.
Celebrate the Viking invaders.
Didn’t they get there arse kicked more than once and sent packing.
I fail to see the point of a bunch of Scottish/British wankers pretending to be vikings when there not has no one got any national pride in being Scottish. The first inhabits of Shetland and the Western Ilse where Scots.
What illiterate gibberish !
I think you’ll find they were Picts, or ethnically similar to them. As were the pre-Norse inhabitants of the Northern Isles.
It wasn’t Scots or Norse that built standing stones and brochs.
A colonized people, or at least those suffering from a colonial mindset, do tend to celebrate their oppressor, nae maitter whither Roman, Dalriata Scot, Norse, or English monarch.
Because Imperialism aye leaves a conquered fowk wi a confused identity, much as we see, and wi the native people no longer part of history.
As Robert Knight rightly implies, the archaeological and historical record of this land aye lead us ‘Scots’ or ‘Norse’ or whitivver else we may call oorsels theday back to the Picts, and hence to Pictland/Pictavia.
DNA does show a slightly higher incidence of Viking genes in both Shetland and Orkney, but, then, it does York, too. As you say, archeology shows quite conclusively that the people there before the Viking were of the same stock was the mainlanders, and that was Pictish or from the same stock as the Picts. Archeology does not lie. Those who consistently denigrate Israeli and Jewish claims to the Holy Land – i.e. Palestine – should remember that. Not saying that there is any automatic right to it, but the archeology upholds the claims that Palestine was inhabited by the Israelites, not by the Arabs.
The political reason for showing Up Hellya every year on the news is to disrupt the Scottish connection to Shetland so that it can be hived off in the future if Scotland becomes independent. Both Shetland and Orkney were ‘Scottish’ in the sense of being the same people as the mainland ‘Scots’ (before Scotland existed as a unified country – which has been for a thousand years, give or take a year or two).
Guardian Online reporting that forces loyal to the ooya tollas may have slaughtered in excess of 30,000 of their own people.
By the very nature of the regime’s crackdown on protest and termination of the internet, precise numbers are impossible to get. Could be significantly less. Unlikely to be less than 20,000.
I wonder how many of us will be safe from Putin Von Trumps SS? Well we have Oil, Water and the best Golf Courses in the World. Oh and we have potential sources of lithium and rare earths. We are fucked i reckon.
I wonder how long it will take Trump to buy the Yoons so called economic basket case that is Alba? I wonder how long it will take NAZI England’s next PM Lord Haw Haw Von Farage to sell Scotland to fuhrer Trump?
There are plenty of Trump SS glove puppets here and in Scotland as a whole it seems. I wonder if Larry Ellison is on the Epstein List? Well he is banning any mention of Epstein on Tik Tok now. Ellison – one of the war criminal Tory Blair pals.I wonder if Blair is into Rent boys like Starmer? Epstein Island has male victims as well.
I forgot to mention earlier.
Due to the removal of double jeopardy,I believe that some would have pursued Alex Salmond if still living to gain a guilty verdict.
On Reporting Scotland tonight Angela Constance stated that the captured tanker captain not being under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Justice system was an insult coming from a person who has frequently demeaned or opposed it.
Is this not just the way things are and we are ,mostly, now just finding out as we are now no longer solely reliant on state media news or party affiliated printed press?
Politicians are simply unrepentant philanderers and untrustworthy wordsmiths incapable of holding down jobs in the real world..
Sigh..
“untrustworthy wordsmiths”
Not sure the evidence supports that, YL.
Take Scotland’s greatest living half-son, for example, President Donald J Trump.
He’s been doing some of the things he said he would do, and the progressive lefties have collectively lost their minds as a result.
Other things he said he would do, it’s slowly dawning on observers he may do them too. Cue utter mayhem and disbelieving chaos.
And now take Farage. The chilling fear he may do some of the things he is saying has plenty in the wider world, and on Wings BTL, pebble dashing their undergarments in a quasi-hysterical funk.
Go figure.
H McH
I doubt Stormy Daniel’s would agree (philandering), nor the worlds news editors who have to try and make sense of The Donald’s policy/ viewpoint daily (untrustworthy wordsmiths) utterances and directional revolutions..
FACT!
Oi vey!!
You carry on believing it though if it suits your Grok worldview though y’all..
Sorry YL, I dinna understand your post.
Stormy Daniel’s what?
Haha, bet you could tell a tale or two about your adventures every time you got a weekend’s leave from your BAOR duties, eh?
But dinna fash. You’re never gonna amount to a hill of beans sae nae cant is ever gonna want to dig up dirt on you. What would be the point?
@robertkknight
27 January, 2026 at 11:55 pm
“I think you’ll find they were Picts, or ethnically similar to them. As were the pre-Norse inhabitants of the Northern Isles.”.
Picts, became known as Scots along with the Gaels now living in whats is called Scotland.
“Picts, became known as Scots along with the Gaels now living in whats is called Scotland.”
Much like some Scots consider themselves as ‘Brits’, or even English, in thair ain assimilated mynds at least.
Which aye brings us back to native language as the foonds of authentic national identity and national consciousness; and the oppressors (i.e. doun-hauder) ‘acquired’ language as the basis of imperial rule.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
& the Scots were originally Irish Gaels and were so into early medieval times, causing much historic confusion, Scots Scots or Irish Scots, so the dog continues to chase its tail…..
Caledonia…..worth a go.
We’re a lost tribe of the rightful owners of the Holy Land, TURABDIN.
Check out the Declaration of Arbroath. Note how our ancestors traced their lineage back to the Jews.
H McH
Sigh..
Wrong ( yet yet yet again)..
What’s is wrong with you?
The mythology goes back to one of 3 sons of biblical Noah (as incidentally do most European/ Eurasian) nation groups.
Then there’s Scotia, princess of Egypt and all wrapped up with the ancient Scythians.
This was all academic de rigour till the later 1800s, almost 600 years after the declaration of Arbroath appeal to the pontif in rebuttal of English printed legal claims of superiority based on (wait for it) the “giant” Albion and then Brutus, son of Priam of Troy no less!
If you are going to take the p1ss out of one countries early medieval foundation mythology then do it to all; unless of course you believe in English progenitor “giants”..
Always a pleasure demolishing your retarded/ one sided contrarian thought processes..
PS: Posted in the wee small hours btw, deal with it milk monitor..
Reverting the conversation back to the Laws at the present time in Scotland and the difference of Englands laws that Stu has to deal with.
If the parliament of England is still in Existence passing laws.
Then so to the original Scottish parliament must Exist to pass Scots laws.
As England has no other connection with a treaty 1707 with any other country or parliament other than Scotland to Create the parliament of Great Britain parliament.
Scotlands old 1707 parliament was dissolved from that treaty in 1707. That was the beginning date that the treaty ended with Scotland,
As it only left one political parliament in the 1707 treaty by it self. ( the parliament of England )
Scotlands old parliament sent its extinct dissolved parliament peers to the the parliament of England.which continues to present date. And still passes laws for England and Wales.
Scotland has never made a treaty with either the GB parliament or the UK parliament in 1707. Or after that date.
Looking for the political union between Scotland and England becomes a game of looking for a needle in a haystack when trying to find Scotlands in a union with England,
But we can still see the parliament of England passing laws today including the “Scotland acts” which it had dissoled its attachment too in 1707.
For over three hundred years Scotlands parliament has not existed and was dissolved in 1707 from the treaty with England.
All laws passed since then have been legally the laws of England and Englands great Britain parliament.
To continue the records,
England left what remained of its vision of a 1707 treaty with Scotland when it chose to alter the Calendar dates on Englands side of the International 1707 treaty that no longer contained Scotland parliament in 1752,
This caused England to miss 11 calendar days of its side of the treaty in the 1707 treaty if it had still legally existed.
Because Scotland did not have a treaty with the parliament of Great Britain.
Englands parliament of Great Britain ended and dissolved itself again in 1800,
And reinstated itself as the parliament of England and Ireland in 1801/ 1802.
Keeping the reminder in our heads that Scotlands side was dissolved in / from the treaty of union in 1707,
And Scotland had not wilfully missed 11 days of the treaty as England had done, had Scotland side still existed after 1707.
And as Scotland never made a 1707 treaty with the parliament of Great Britain. It could not bring Scotlands dissolved parliament into Englands new parliament of the united kingdom.
The records show that by political dissolving of the Scottish parliament from the 1707 treaty in 1707 by both the monarch of England and the parliament of Englands-Great Britain
That either of England’s or its Great Britain or its United Kingdom parliaments failed to take Scotland along with them since 1707. 1752′ or 1800′ 1801/1802.
The Scotland Acts for a devolved parliament in Scotland and Scotland law reform acts are Acts of Englands multiple parliament that failed to include Scotland.
Other than via deceit, lies and blustering propaganda for over 300 years,
Because if your 1707 parliament of Scotland has been dissolved in 1707 it immediately fails to be in a union with the 1706 parliament of England..
for the multiple reasons explained above.
Eventually and slowly it comes to the attention of people in Scotland,
and then one wonders does Scotland need to request a section 30, or seek permission to leave the United kingdom of Englands – Irelands Britain parliament it was dissolved from in 1707.
The realisation that the SNP and every other political party sitting in the pretend faux parliament sent to Scotland for management of Scotland under the legislation of Englands version of the United kingdom of Great Britains parliament, [in which Scotland holds no Treaty with ] is indeed a hoax,
The laws, the realm, the kingdom, the territory, boundaries, the courts , the tribunal bodies, the judges, the industries on Scottish soil, the estates, the land registary, , the taxes and taxation revenues, free ports, the mineral wealth, and resources basically all still belong to the Scottish community of people.
Because Scotland made the offer of a Union with England, however England rebuffed that offer by Dissolving the Scottish parliament from the treaty of union as early as 1707.
And going forward alone under great pretence that the treaty had been completed,
Scotland still has no treaty with the three parliaments of England.
remember silicon glen? – not many do; it happened, sort of, but not really and then died a death.
After the deindustrialisation of the 80s, it was meant to restore/save manufacturing in Scotland. “white heat” and all that, tech to the rescue.
Of course the london regime doesn’t give a fuck about such things and this is why we can’t have nice things. Everything goes to the “golden triangle” – London/Oxford/Cambridge – and you – maybe – get the scraps off the table, to lick the spoon.
Not much going on in the UK, the next hail mary pass is the AI boom, and they want to get in on the thing – not you Scotland! – fucking south east, fucking silicon fen, ya choob. Its a done deal, almost – Ellison wants to come here and wants it along the oxbridge corridor (where despite the woke destruction of academic standards, you still need to find people who know what a matrix is); all the UK needs to do is build some infrastructure, a railway line, lay some cables, but you know what – they can’t even do that right, even when it is to their own tremendous advantage.
link to archive.ph
– can’t build a bloody, ordinary, railway line. Don’t mention HS2.
But then they can’t do much either (apart from trousering oil receipts or structuring a basket of asian reverse lookback dead donkey options) – consider the major boondoggle right now – nukes is hard when you deindustrialised all those years ago
link to youtube.com
miles behind schedule and over budget; the chinese build the best nuke power plants, and they do it in 6 years
no one can pish money up a wall like the anglos
link to archive.ph
– especially when it comes to engines of war – here they fail to build a working light tank; if it was an invisible mach 10 flying saucer with death ray laser beams, okay, that’s a bit tricky … it’s just a tank, ffsake
meanwhile the faroe islanders, a nation of 40000, are the worlds best tunnellers, and can complete the job before the anglos had signed the contracts : “too wee too poor …”
the myth of british competence was always a fiction for domestic consumption – no one anywhere else fell for it
link to archive.ph
“We’ve got a genuine PR problem in the sense that when you talk to global investors there’s always the perception that the UK is going nowhere. It is run by incompetents, and that potentially it just gets worse.”
– but hey … we’re building nuke power stations and subs and the 6th gen superfighter
if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you
link to archive.ph
– London Bridge
another reason we need out of shithole UK = super england is that the place is -literally – “goin down … ” – the whole south east is one big flood plain they intend to build on every inch of
link to archive.ph
– we will be on the hook for 100s of billions to build the flood defences that will protect all the nigels and hyacinth buckets from living in the everglades
the deep reason why the UK can’t actually do anything “in the real world” is because of the city – the city must get its cut of anything that happens, and the more complex things are, the more middlemen involved, the more expensive it all becomes. The city doesn’t think anything is wrong with this, nor would it look on HS2 as a “disaster” – a lot of the right people trousered a lot of dosh on that, so what’s the problem?
coda : there is a real fucking problem with the current AI boom. Thing is LLMs are a dead end; lots of LLM people are getting out into other things. The problem is the transformer architecture is just an old idea on steroids and pumped up to the max; the feedforward neural network trained via backpropagation – they added more layers, got a billion times more training data and a billion times more compute – and it “works” (sortof). Problem is, it is not doing any thinking and its not using logic and it is not a “truth machine”, but a very good mimic of such a thing. Now, I use it, it’s a great tool for certain things, but you need to know its limits; I doubt AGI “is coming” for one thing, and might even be impossible with such an architecture. It might eliminate a lot of low level pointless paper generation, but it creates an even greater need for high level experts – because of “hallucinations” which are impossible to eliminate (and cannot be spotted by the hoi polloi) – it makes AI unusable (if you are exercising due diligence) for anything high level, like cutting out the tumour, convicting the criminal, doing the big deal, or firing the nukes … when you need to be absolutely right, you can’t trust it. Brainstorming, boilerplate, code generation, summarisation, okay, but it is always hostage to the quality of the training data.
– LLMs might have hit their limits. They already consume too much energy and water; just hooking up entire grids to feed them will be (should be) politically impossible. So the future for LLMs is low power chips and models; and if you want AGI, think up something better (? neuromorphic chips, photonics, neuro symbolic systems) – oh and BTW – vision modelling is much harder than language modelling.
Any chance of a few links, Confused?
You can redact the personal details, but alert readers will want to know that you’ve utilised your smarts to make yourself filthy rich.
Otherwise? C’moan noo, I don’t have to spell it out.
Most of the supposed builds are avenues to erase the trace of funneling money out of Britain,
I suppose one consolation is Scotland is not in a treaty with the corporation City of London either.
It has not been connected to anywhere or anything since / prior to 1707 and failed after 1707. As England refused and rebuffed the parliamentary Union of the two Countries becoming one by dissolving the 1707 Scottish parliament from England.
Englands politicians and English/ Scottish politicians and civil servants are well aware of this early slip up they made, but would never let the people of Scotland know this.
Think MacCrone report,
At the end of history to date Scotland is not attached to England in a Union, , not due to what Scotland did or didn’t do back then,
but because of England politicians and Englands monarchs choices they made in 1707. 1752 1800.
Simplified version.
England parliament waited until Scotland signed.
Then chucked Scotland out of the treaty.
Then
England altered its dates on the treaty,
Then
England dissolved the Great Britain parliament.
Then
returned as the Anglo-Irish parliament united kingdom
Then
hoaxed that it included Scotland.
It did this under the name of Great Britain parliament.
Which holds no 1707 treaty with Scotland.
“John Swinney calls for UK warships to be based in Scotland”
——————————————
Has he not noticed the subs?
“John Swinney calls for UK warships to be based in Scotland”
Yes, quite incredible that an allegedly nationalist political leader who claims to be fighting for independence/decolonization actually calls for military occupation by the oppressor power?
We can relate this to ‘dependency complex’ as part of the colonial mindset affecting colonized elites in particular.
Another feature of a colony in this instance is of course the absence of any national coastguard fleet, or capability to do anything about the protection of its territorial area.
Don’t worry Alf – the SNP can clean off the guns on Dumbarton rock and everyone will be safe from the military occupation by the oppressor power.
Dinna fash, Alf.
No ships, military or civilian, are gonna come near Scotland if the bill to criminalise prostitution is passed into law.
John Swinney calls for UK warships to be based in Scotland, this is what your voting for in Mays election the status quo.
Here is a prime example of how the SNP could generate support for Independence by arguing that the FM should be with Keir Starmer in China representing Scotland business. I don’t think it even crossed his mind that by making the point not only would he generate support for the SNP in the up and coming election he would actually look like a leader rather than a tit who only go in live is to stay and obey, the man shame us all.
Sure. Go bowing and scraping to the cants whose escaped lab-engineered virus killed tens of thousands of us and cost our economy tens of billions.
Swinney could generate support for Indy by declaring that in an Independent Scotland, no Covid Spreader goods and service of any description would be allowed across our border.
At least until the murdering, lying cants abjectly apologise and agree to pay reparations for the crime of the century – Covid.
He might be worried that Starmer will hand him some Vaseline and grope his arse.
I guess Swinney forgot about the American NAZI Owned Nuke deterrent.
“Some of Scotland’s best baking talent came together on Wednesday for a unique challenge celebrating one of the country’s favourite treats. The Empire biscuit has been enjoyed by generations of Scots.”
———————————
Nice but what an unfortunate name!
Only for a few generations, Agentx. Empire biscuits were originally known as German biscuits, but the name was changed during World War I due to anti-German sentiment. I once went into Aulds in Greenock and asked for a German biscuit – the woman serving me didn’t bat an eyelid and handed me the right thing!
@ Saffron Robe – interesting – thanks.
I think the following reply by Perplexity AI to my question below is very revealing and sums up everything that is wrong with the judgement. The very last sentence, in particular, is noteworthy.
Tell me, Perplexity, why would it be wrong for a judge to produce a selective judgement rather than an objective one?
A judge producing a selective (biased) judgment rather than an objective one is wrong because it violates the core principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.
1. It breaches the duty of impartiality
Judges are required by law and ethics to be impartial: they must decide cases based only on the law and the evidence, not on personal views, preferences, or political/ideological leanings. A “selective” judgment — one that picks and chooses facts, rules, or precedents to fit a desired outcome — shows that the judge is no longer a neutral umpire but an advocate for one side.
This breaks the ancient rule of natural justice: nemo judex in causa sua (“no one should be a judge in their own cause”). When a judge imposes a subjective outcome instead of an objective application of law, the very legitimacy of the court is undermined.
2. It denies fair trial and due process
Every party has a constitutional or legal right to a fair hearing, which includes being judged on the merits of their case, not on who they are or what the judge thinks they deserve. A selective judgment often means disregarding relevant evidence, ignoring binding precedent, or twisting the law to fit a particular ideology or outcome.
This violates due process and can amount to a denial of justice: the losing party is not just disagreeing with the result, but saying the process itself was unfair because the judge had already decided the outcome in advance.
3. It undermines public trust
For the justice system to work, people must believe that courts are neutral and decisions are based on law, not on the judge’s personal beliefs or politics. Even the appearance of bias — where a reasonable observer would suspect the judge favoured one side — damages public confidence.
Once trust in impartiality is lost, people stop seeing courts as protectors of rights and start seeing them as instruments of power or ideology, which weakens the rule of law and can provoke social and political unrest.
4. It can make the decision legally invalid
In most legal systems, a judgment tainted by actual or apparent bias is not just morally wrong — it is legally defective and can be set aside on appeal or judicial review. Courts routinely quash decisions where a judge showed clear partiality, had a conflict of interest, or gave the appearance of unfairness, even if the outcome was technically correct.
A biased decision is not just “a wrong opinion”; it is often treated as voidable because the process was corrupted, and the matter must be re-heard by an impartial judge.
5. It confuses judging with policymaking
Judges are not supposed to be lawmakers or ideologues; their role is to interpret and apply existing law, not to create new rules that reflect their personal vision of justice. A selective judgment that invents new interpretations or ignores inconvenient parts of the law to reach a “progressive” (or “conservative”) result crosses the line into legislation, which is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.
When judges substitute their own values for the law, they erode the separation of powers and the predictability that the rule of law requires.
In short
A selective, non?objective judgment is wrong because it replaces law with preference, turns the judge into a partisan, denies fair process, and undermines the very foundation of a free and lawful society. Courts exist to apply the law equally, not to give the parties what the judge thinks is right based on ideology.
Apologies for the question mark in the last paragraph. It must be an AI hallucination! It was definitely a hyphen in the original text.
Jeezo, SR, what a pile of mince.
You’ve already subjectively provided the answer you want in your question.
At the very least, ask the following question and report back:
Why would it be right for a judge to produce a selective judgement rather than an objective one?
If a judgement is selective rather than objective, it ceases to be a judgement of law and becomes merely an opinion. That’s the point.
In what way, H McH? Subjective versus objective is precisely what was asked. I had not ever thought you naive, but this comment shows that you can be, albeit we all can be at times. Had you asked me ten + years ago, would I leave the SNP, the answer would have been a resounding, NO because I could not conceive of the SNP treating its female members and supporters so badly. Had you asked me, would the law be treated in future as an opinion, I would have given a resounding, NO because I was brought up to be law-abiding and to acknowledge that the law is there to protect everyone.
My, perhaps naive, faith in so many things has been shattered now – irreparably. It is very hard to live life having little to no trust in anything. I’ve gone beyond illusion into a hard-centred contempt for so many people and so many things, and I am teetering on the cusp of hatred and I have difficulty now in recognising the person I used to be. I hope, however, that I am still respectful of those around me, and I wish no one any harm. Occasionally, something happens, or someone does something, that makes me feel good again for a while. Unfortunately, perhaps, I have always been a realist and can find no refuge in utter delusion as so many appear to do.
@Lorna Campbell
“When delivering a verdict on a point of law, is it better for the judge to produce a subjective judgement or an objective one?”
That’s a framing of the question that does not specify up front the answer the questioner wants.
I suggest you read SR’s original question again.
AI is a mindless pattern matcher with an in-built bias to provide answers the user will like. So don’t tell it in advance what answer will please you.
Well done, Saffron Robe. Those are exactly the points I have been trying to make: it all depends on what you ask AI to do. Whoever fed the information into AI for the judgement must have fed in, by the law of probabilities, a question about ‘trans’ protection and it led the AI in the Stonewall law direction. Nothing else makes sense at all, and if you accept that Judge Kemp did not even correct the ‘errors’, either he is terribly remiss, his ‘judicial colleague’ was, or he/they had already decided how the decision would go for what appear to be, on the face of it, ‘trans’ supporting reasons on their own behalf – or because they were nobbled by political influence.
Whatever happened is of crucial importance to know about so that, a) no other litigant is treated in the same biased way, and, b) the law is not subverted to serve the interests of one party against those of the other to the extent that the public can have no trust in the legal professions, in the law itself or in the legal system that delivers that biased judgement. I believe, personally, that we are at a pivotal moment, in a number of areas, where the law can redeem itself or fall spectacularly.
If it falls, we are all in trouble because the law really is the only thing that stands between us and social and political totalitarianism. Independence will avail us nothing if the law falls through deliberate flouting and skewing of its basic principles, if, indeed, that is what has happened here, as nothing will be too precious or inviolable to avoid being tampered with by a presumed elite whose interests are served by ignoring and deliberately flouting the law.
” Independence will avail us nothing if the law falls through deliberate flouting and skewing of its basic principles”
Which inevitably brings us back to the realisation that we are anything but an independent nation, Lorna, and that the colonial society Scots live in is aye held tight by what we see, which amounts to:
“a very solid organization; a government and a judicial system fed and renewed by the colonizer’s historic, economic and cultural needs” (Memmi).
It is in this reality, according to Frantz Fanon, that a co-opted national party elite choosing to act as a colonial administration itself “becomes an instrument of coercion”. And he reminds us that fascism, which is inevitable in our case, is defined as “colonialism when rooted in a traditionally colonialist country”.
Which means that “the native loses no time in lamentations, and hardly ever seeks for justice in the colonial framework”, not least because “the colonial regime owes its legitimacy to force”.
On the subject of tradition, some traditional mince and tatties from Professor Baird.
The archetypal fascist countries were, of course, Mussolini’s Italy (the word “fascist” is of Italian/Latin derivation) and Hitler’s Germany.
Of all the great European powers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the least traditionally colonialist were Italy and Germany, principally because they didn’t even exist as unified countries until almost modern times.
To equate fascism with colonialism is history denying ignorance.
Fanon and Memmi – foreign boys who knew SFA about Scotland, our people, our history, our culture, or our unique political and economic situation.
Other than, I’m quietly confident of this, if they were alive today and met any Scot, they would make it crystal clear they loathed and detested every last one of us, simply for the “crime” of being white.
Very good comment in reply to the points Lorna raises, Alf, as are all your comments. I like how you are able to put Scotland’s situation into context using postcolonial theory and the writings of Frantz Fanon, Albert Memmi, and Aimé Césaire, amongst others. Colonialism and imperialism pose an existential threat to the nations they prey upon, and unfortunately for us Westminster has been at the forefront of both. I would agree — the basis of the Union is proto-fascist, and it can only be held together by force and deception, whether soft or hard.
“Fanon and Memmi – foreign boys who knew SFA about Scotland, our people, our history, our culture, or our unique political and economic situation.
“Other than, I’m quietly confident of this, if they were alive today and met any Scot, they would make it crystal clear they loathed and detested every last one of us, simply for the “crime” of being white.”
Only if you hold others to your own standards.
UK PARLIAMENT: IDENTITY AND LANGUAGE (Northern Ireland) ACT 2022
Statement made on 28 January 2026 by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Government Spokesperson for Northern Ireland, Labour Life peer.
STATEMENT:
My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn) has today made the following statement:
I wish to provide an update to the House regarding the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 (‘the Act’).
The New Decade, New Approach deal which was instrumental to the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive in 2020 (after a three year absence) included an agreed legislative framework for progressing identity and language commitments: the Act.
The Act received Royal Assent in December 2022. Specific provisions in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act were commenced in May 2023 establishing the following roles: (1) Director of the Office for Identity and Cultural Expression; (2) Irish Language Commissioner; and (3) Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition.
I warmly welcome the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision in October 2025 to appoint Pól Deeds as the Irish Language Commissioner; Lee Reynolds as the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition; and Dr Katy Radford as the Director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression.
In order that they may now carry out their duties, I am today commencing further provisions in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act, following a request from the Executive Office.
Provisions being commenced in Section 1 relate to the principles of national and cultural identity to which public authorities must have due regard, as well as the functions and responsibilities of the Director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression.
Provisions being commenced in Section 2 outline the functions and responsibilities of the Irish Language Commissioner in developing and promoting best practice standards in relation to the Irish language.
Finally, provisions in Section 3 relate to the functions and responsibilities of the Commissioner for Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition in promoting the language, arts and literature associated with Ulster Scots as well as developing and promoting guidance in relation to Ulster Scots.
In commencing these provisions, we are continuing to ensure respect and tolerance for all of Northern Ireland’s diverse identities, cultures, languages and traditions.
link to questions-statements.parliament.uk
See also:
link to tuairisc.ie
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND GOVT: NO LEGAL OBLIGATION ON SCHOOLS TO USE PREFERRED PRONOUNS
The Irish Govt Department of Education and Youth has dismissed controversial claims that schools must pander to gender ideology.
A new pro-trans guide from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) told gender-confused students that schools were required to use their “correct name and pronoun in day-to-day interactions”.
But the Department of Education refuted the claim, stating that no such obligation existed in law or Departmental guidance.
TRANS STUDENT GUIDE
ICCL’s publication, ‘Know Your Rights: A Guide for Trans and Non-Binary People’, informs students that “your school must make every effort to update your name and pronoun in relevant systems and documents”.
It also states that “as a trans student you should be able to access toilets and changing facilities that correspond with your gender identity.
“If you are told you are not allowed to use a bathroom matching your gender identity, this may constitute discrimination on the basis of gender”.
The publication also assures students that schools should allow them to take part in sports “in accordance with your gender identity”, and that teachers do not need to inform parents if they ‘transition’ while at school.
‘ACTIVIST WISHLIST’
Psychotherapist Stella O’Malley said the ICCL “has no hold over school policies in Ireland” and warned that its advice “will harm kids”.
Laoise de Brún, co-founder of women’s rights group The Countess, responded: “The new guidance from ICCL is simply an activist wishlist with no legal standing.”
Speaking to the Irish Times she said: “There is no right in law for anyone to force someone else to use their ‘preferred pronouns’. Enforced speech is not a right, and freedom of expression is.”
The guide was produced in conjunction with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and researched and written by trans activist lobby groups the Transgender Equality Network Ireland and ShoutOut.
(The Christian Institute, 28 Jan 2026)
link to christian.org.uk
“28 January 2026
A former trainee prison custody officer has claimed he was unfairly sacked for objecting to calling transgender prisoners by their chosen pronoun.
David Toshack told an employment tribunal security firm GeoAmey terminated his employment in January last year over his gender critical views.”
link to bbc.co.uk
The State ordering people what to believe. That’s tyranny isn’t it?
I think a few post past here on wings I referred to the issue of Scotland pretend governance accepting Irish- Scots as a recognised language,
Jacob rhys mogg in a Telegraph interview this week also stated that Ireland’s people have a recognised a dual Identity unlike himself when he states he often says he’s english and often uses the double interlinked term British.
If English is British and British in English.
But forgot to mention or avoided to mention that Scotland’s people must also have a duel Identity like Ireland.
Rather strange and interesting to discover that Scotlands peoples are becoming merged as English-British or Irish British.
Perhaps a unspoken plan to give Scottish people and Scotland to Ireland, after all you only need to build a bridge between Scotland and Ireland as once proposed by Bois Jonson.
The linking of Scotland identity to Ireland through language and bridges removes the individual Scottish identity and territory of Scotland.
One to keep in mind for future reference.
Scotland not being politically attached to England since 1707 is not Englands to give away or to alter its territorial realm, laws or languages.
What goes on in the lead politics of English politician heads.l.while Scotlands people have no treaty or links with either of the British parliaments.
It will no doubt be fee earning time for lawyers arguing the issues here.
Does someone have a right to be called by an alternative name of their choice as opposed to their registered birth name, and if they don’t get called it by, in this case, a custody officer, are they entitled to be sacked.
However, aside of the legal arguments of which there will be many, the issue here complained of is that an individual was sacked because of his failure to use a individuals name of choice and in consequence fell foul of the woo woo woke protocols mandated by the Scottish Prison Service.
Now we don’t know the detail of this case, but once again, this is litigation, looking not too dissimilr to the Sandie Peggie, of someone being punished as a consequence of the ever present woo woo woke ideology that our Scottish Government have unleashed.
In the Peggie case she was punished for objecting to a physical man with the baw baws et al inserting himself into women’s spaces.
In this case it appears someone is being punished for using a trans woman biological or real birth name.
It’s a big pay day for lawyers arguing, But as this example shows the costs to our society is much more than that.
Who needs health care services, or in fact any other services when all our governmental organizations spend all their focus on woo woo woke. And to emphasize that, the Scottish Government are supporting NHS Fife to appeal the Sandi Peggie decision.
All these policies and protocols introduced at great cost in our schools, health services, prisons, government agencies et al involved the policies having to be written and implemented, involving training of staff how they must apply woo woo woke. It’s all money, big money. Ya hoo cowboys.
It’s wild, Who needs health care services, or in fact any other services when all our governmental organizations can spend spend focus on woo woo woke.
And the punters, the happless voters who voted for this bull, then have the temerity to complain about failing services, budget cuts, and the like.
Moreover, unlike England, Police Scotland are recording on the police data base non criminal hate crime with no justification than a someone complaining of their perception of hateful or hurtful comment.
That this thereafter this recorded information, is used in Disclosure Checks, the implications of innocent people being punished as guilty purely on one-sided allegations is chilling. So suck that up folks if you are denied a job because someone decided to call you out as a bad yin.
All in all just another example of a screwed up broken country going down the tubes.
But just wait till AI and the digital ID that links everything and everyone together- from phones, to facial recognition, to employment, to travel, to internet usage, to banking to tax records, to education records to health records.
Already and indeed for many years when you join a GP surgery your information is run through home office and immigration office computers and of course your information can be made available to police. HMRC.
Oh how the little animals will feel loved, protected and respected. A golden benevolent future lies before us.
But maybe I digress this fine lovely Thursday morning. Sun is shining. There is no ICE. What do we have to fret about.
If you’re the kind of Scot who has to worry about ICE, Willie, then perhaps you should get tae.
The first duty of a country’s government is to secure its borders. Without borders there is no country.
People who choose to ignore the right of a country to choose who may move into it are illegal immigrants. Law breakers. Criminals. Throw them out.
You post about woo woo and the subversion of the established meanings of words. Never has there been more of that than around the subject of the criminals whose very first act on reaching our shores, by definition, is to raise two fingers at our law.
“During training, Toshack was told he had to use a prisoner’s chosen pronoun – in this case “she” or “her” for a trans woman prisoner who was born male.
However he said he would not do this as he believed nobody could change the body they were born with.
Toshack was taken to a meeting with GeoAmey training leader Chris Hutton and a woman representing the firm’s human resources department later that day.
He said he would call the prisoner by their chosen female name but would not use the pronoun she.”
————————————————-
It was using the pronoun her/she that he objected to.
He agreed to call the prisoner by their chosen female name.
Marie,
There are an awful lot of people across media using stronger terms for the governance, the State and the Crown in these Isles
The terms dictatorship and (tractor eds ) are regularly becoming more common phrases by media and the people.
The trouble in Minnesota seems to be triggered by the uncovering of a massive fraud ring, done by foreigners and aided and abetted by corrupt local politicians; reminds me of a place I know …
I wish Scotland had its own ICE – to shoot dangerous terrorist subversives in the head – pop pop pop – where they stand; soon the quangos and NGOs would be routed. All the anglos, with their strangled vowels, sodomy and wokist bad ideas, corrupting the bodily and spiritual strength of the Scot, cast out. Then we ship them back to the canary islands and then mauretania and denmark, rwanda, where they can be happy. You might all be Jock Tamsons bairns
– BUT ITS TIME YOU GOT OUT THE FUCKING HOUSE (SCOTLAND) AND STOPPED LEECHING FROM US
no more quango jobs, diversity hires, small castles as second homes and free prescriptions for you lot
interesting analysis
link to youtube.com
let me do one for “people of Scotland” : it breaks down as
SCOTS – the people, born here, live here, work here, educated here, along with their parents, grandparents, perhaps going back thousands of years; they know who they are and what they want, what is right and just. The people that Scotland belongs to.
JOCKS – as above, but clueless; they are “white n1ggers” that “live in an abattoir but don’t notice the smell” having become used to it; cannot conceive of anything other than UK, but reachable with the right medium. Most responsive to mainstream television and it is why BBC propaganda works so well; if I was in control of the BBC support for indy would be 75% in 3 months.
YOONS – the tr4itors in our midst, of the idiotic and violent kind; form their allegiance to a british ideal based on antiquated religious bigotry. Stupid as they come, they never got very much out of the business enterprise that was empire, so they are the ultimate chumps, but alas they drag the rest of us down. Unreachable. Willing to act as street thugs, directed by sinister minds; need to be slapped down hard, on the day.
BRITNATS – the middle class establishment kind of tr4itor; at least they “got something out of it” all, a nice life, the good job, a profession, fat govt pension; slippery, but venal, can be bought.
CALE-FAUX-DONIANS – the middle class fake nationalists; sure, they believe in indy, but only of a type – indy Scotland has to be this “woke Brigadoon” with a tranny in every position of power and pride marches incessantly, for all. Performative, virtue signalling, sanctimonious, they are the woke puritans, the John Knoxes of diversity. Have greatest hatred for the Scots, their own kind, as they are working class, or rather “far right”. They are the baggage in the indy movement, the fatberg in the pipe, the bricks in the rucksack. Their removal is a priority as they inevitably form leadership positions, the vanguard – but they are a ball and chain which kills all momentum with their diversionary nonsense, which can be about any people or any country or any other cause in the world, apart from ours. Note that the famous “cringe” is exlusively theirs.
NEW SCOTS – BAMS, bams, all the way down; people with no skills, on the grift, here to collapse the welfare state, the NHS and participate in a crime wave (ficki ficki – 5 dollah fucky sucky!); they don’t want to integrate never mind assimilate; they don’t want to be like you, they have their own identity and their own beliefs, mainly islam, which is a one size fits all totalitarian system; it is simple and appeals to the simpleton. They consider western ideas from christianity to liberalism, to be decadent and inferior. They play nice, until they have the numbers, then its a fight; violence follows wherever they go. They aren’t interested in voting, which is unislamic; but will vote as a bloc if their imam tells them to. New Scots are treated like “pets” by the Caledonians (who are in turn, despised, reeking of western corruption).
ANGLOS – the s3ttler, the c0lonist, the little englander who thinks Scotland is like an english shire, like Kent, or Essex; an anglo supremacist who thinks to be born english is to have won the lottery of life; despises Scots and Scotland. Taking over the highlands, the borders, edinburgh. Anglos are protected and defended by Caledonians, who don’t want you to notice that the cunts shitting the place up are largely english cunts, and Scotland’s historical problems are 99% due to England. Your grievance must be abstract, don’t actually point the finger and say “it was YOU … ya cunt … ya english cunt …” : I would like to see the english banned from any voting or even speaking in public or on the media, or in the newspapers – you people have too much to say for yourselves, and no one gives a fuck, and when you think about it, is counterproductive – when, if ever, has your braying condescension ever won a Scot over? I am surprised there have not been actual pogroms at their stinking dens of anglo-filth, places like edinburgh or st andrews unis. Best shut your mouth, or better still, just go home, we don’t want you and your kind here, you are better off among your own kind of people, eating hotpot.
Anyone up here, on the grift, to treat us like shit, to disrespect us, has to leave. No self respecting people would tolerate the shite we have to.
We see the enemies from without – new scots and anglos, but also within – jocks, yoons, britnats and caledonians. It’s a nasty pincer move and you have to shift your focus at times, but once you see them, their tricks are obvious, as is how to deal with them.
Gonna level with you, Confused, these days I really miss your antisemitism.
What I’d love to know is why you’ve decided to go light on that.
Is it because you no longer think they’re gonna lose the war, and have started to fear the victors might want some quiet revenge? As we regularly see, they have a long reach.
Or is it because it has dawned on even the most virulent antisemites that the farcical jenny side claims no longer hold any water, even with the dumbest of disinterested click bait swallowers?
Interesting to read what you categorise as bams though. There’s one group of people who have been fighting the bams forever, with great success too. We need them on our side.
We can learn something from the adherents to the religion of peace. Our enemy’s enemy is our friend.
I wonder if Fettes alters its bumming rates based on boarders or day-boys? I expect those who pay higher fees are guaranteed more sodomy.
link to archive.ph
Fettes, is cringe. The model for Hogwarts – it is a copy of an english “public” (WTF do they call private schools, public?) school; it is the cringing scottish britnat doing his “I wanna be like you oo oo … ” (I wanna be a proper english …)
and therein lies the psycho-sexual truth of empire – we must resist the bourgeois degeneracy of the coloniser
FOR ALL ENGLISH ARE POOFS; they got it rammed right into the coccyx bone at private school, and the ramming went right up the spinal column into the brain, rewiring it; then they start to like it and when they grow up they go around trying to make others like them. Makes you angry, you want to hurt people.
Perversion is built into imperialism, it is libertine to the core – any hole’s a goal, and its master and servant all the way. And the paedophile becomes explainable – when you get tired of the slack balloon knots of your jaded countrymen, you start to pine for fresh meat, for a young fella, and just to be on the safe side, to make sure its real tight, you want something prepubescent; top tip – you shouldn’t be able to get it in on first try and without a fistful of lube (- if the kid is screaming when you are putting it in, it adds an extra frisson, extra iron in your rod). Leggy Mountbottom, Phil the Greek, James Savile – they all dun a bit. These are the scum that rule you – they are laughing at you every day, up to the hilt in young arse and with a mountain of money, your money, stashed and paying for it all.
Sodomy built the empire. Fascism is totally gay.
link to archive.ph
As Hagrid might say : YOU’RE A -CATAMITE- NOW, HARRY!
– but it sets you up for a good career in the civil service, navy and “breaks you in” for all those masonic initiations.
Bit of an obsession there, Confused.
I’m guessing they wouldn’t “let you in”.
What Scottish parliament?
It is under the legislation of the British and united kingdom parliaments.
Both of which have no 1707 Treaty with Scotland.
Only the old parliament of England can make that claim.
And England altered the dates on that international treaty in England after it was signed
and dissolved Scotlands parliament from that treaty in 1707.
Again it requires questioning, What Scottish parliament?
Its a English parliament.
if you had never heard of this, it might surprise you; negative prices, being paid to use electricity!?
link to archive.ph
– yes it does happen (but not to you, the “retail costumer”). It has also happened in gas markets when there is not enough storage.
Also note our stupid pricing system which pays the providers to turn the turbines off – crazy (and deliberately creates the most expensive leccy in the world, despite its excess). You can always find something to do with the energy – like crypto mining for example.
Note that combined wind and solar is the way to go, to even out the supply issues, but you do need battery storage. And this is where hydro comes in. But you see how you have to treat it all as a single system, which is why you need a national energy monopoly. Fragmented into separate “markets” the individual suppliers are merely trying to maximise their own profit – this “market solution” acts AGAINST efficiency and any notion of an optimal allocation and use of resources. To put it bluntly, the “market solution” fucks you up; energy should be regarded as infrastructure and thus handled by the state.
interesting man – he knew energy markets don’t work; he tried to get us secure low cost gas
link to archive.ph
when he retired in 1994 he predicted that the liberalisation of gas and electricity markets would end badly because the market had no interest in security of supply, only profit.
– he told us what would happen 30 years ago.
makes you sick, doesn’t it, knowing there are good and competent people around, but they get sidelined. I notice the phrase “devout christian”, I think in this case “devout” means – takes it seriously and tries to live their life by it, rather than “pays it lip service then just behaves like a cunt … ” (he was an anglican, which is basically catholic)
Remember : energy is real wealth, you can’t print it, or conjure it into existence via an entry in a ledger
– everything real depends on it. What we call “money” is just a collection of accounting conventions. Once you have energy you can do things, anything you want. We have an excess, which should be put to use in Scotland, not England. Energy is “real money”.
Power, is abundant in Scotland. Wind is abundant and wind can now produce more than Scotland needs. And if course Scotland has hydro and pump storage too.
But has this bonanza delivered anything for the population power poor populace who through expensive prices struggle to heat their houses. Of course it hasn’t.
But that is the price of choosing exploitation. Colonial commercial exploitation is and has been our choice. Who else is to blame.
But on reading your comments Confused I did think a mention of Inclining Block Tarrifs. Think of the concept of progressive taxation. First £100 of income no tax levied. Next £100 a bit of tax. The next £100a but more and so on.
So why not first amount of units at a low price. The next units a bit more, and the next units above that a bit more again.
Why should, and is it fair that a cottar in his house pays the same, or in fact more for his electricity than a billionaire with the castle, swimming pool, sauna et al.
Indeed, it might be if interest to understand who actually pays what for prices. The plundering of ordinary people is an art form well practiced in Bonnie Scotland.
But yes, Inclining Block Tarrifs – a thought for the day.
Otherwise as one Powerco advised, when cold, folks should consider dancing. Braw idea. A nation of dancers.
Sure, Willie. Wind power is so abundant in Scotland they’re building all the turbines dozens of miles out to sea. Just for a laugh.
Bet the wind is blowing strongly just outside your window right now. What you should do, to put one over on all the colonialist exploiters, is harness all that lovely free power for yourself.
Disconnect from the grid, stop paying leccy bills forever, enjoy your unlimited free power.
In fact, beats me why you didn’t do it years ago.
“Wind power is so abundant in Scotland”
Indeed so, these are immense energy surpluses that would be earning Scots around £100 billion a year were it not for our continued colonial plunder by Westminster and the ‘Union’ hoax.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
@Alf – so in a future independent Scotland electricity bills would amount to around 33% of GDP? Sounds like a situation of extremely impoverishment!
“Wind power is abundant in Scotland.”
Has anyone told you that converting “wind power” into usable electricity is enormously expensive?
And since the wind doesn’t blow constantly, and sometimes not at all, while electricity demand is 24/7, the “windmill electricity” generated has to be supplemented by a conventional energy source like natural gas?
And that enormous amounts of scarce resources have to be used up to build the windmills, and the grid to supply the generated electricity to consumers?
Oh, give it a rest, Alf.
If Scotland has a renewable leccy surplus on one of those days when the wind is blowing strongly, it still falls far short when it’s a flat calm. And even when the wind is strong, Scotland’s current and planned capacity will still fall far short when every vehicle is electric, when all gas and oil CH has been banned, etc.
You’re far too smart not to understand that nine tenths of the offshore wind generation infrastructure is being paid for by English consumers. We could only install that same infrastructure ourselves by setting our own bills at levels that would have us rioting in the streets. Even as things stand, the one tenth that Scottish consumers are paying for through their bills is driving many Scots into fuel poverty.
Then there’s the elephant in the room you won’t and can’t ever address. Even for the UK, with an Air Force and Navy, the offshore infrastructure is likely undefendable in a shooting war.
For Scotland to put her energy eggs in the basket of erratically available, undefendable, high-maintenance, high-cost, remotely situated structures is utter folly. Double folly when you appreciate that the deluded virtue signallers in the wee pretendy parliament are suicidally determined to keep our oil, gas and coal in the ground.
“Indeed so, these are immense energy surpluses that would be earning Scots around £100 billion a year…”
Yes, Alf. The wind never stops blowing and the waves never stop waving way out in Scotland’s seas… I heard scientists who researched this phenomenon talk in of the potential energy generation of our Scottish seas as being equivalent to sixty (yes, 60) nuclear power stations.
“Scotland’s seas have the potential to generate the equivalent energy output of sixty nuclear power stations through tidal and wave energy projects.” – taken from an internet search.
“In summary, Scotland’s marine energy resources have the potential to significantly contribute to its energy output, aligning closely with the output of sixty nuclear power stations.”
I wonder if this is why England is so desperate to hold onto Scotland… illegally I might add.
England’s seas, on the other hand, only have the potential to generate enough energy to power sixty indoor living room fish tanks .
“Scotland already possesses key competitive advantages in marine energy, including abundant natural resources and dedicated enterprise agencies.
The country’s marine area contains a significant share of Europe’s tidal energy resource, estimated at around 25%.
The economic potential of tidal stream and wave energy is substantial, with the potential to create thousands of jobs and contribute significantly to Scotland’s energy landscape.”
Scotland… not too poor efter aw, it seems. And all that dosh from Scottish sea generated power doesn’t include oil or whisky or all the other stuff Scotland has in abundance and the world is willing to pay a lot for.
No wonder England will sink to any level to hold onto Scotland…Scotland is England’s golden goose – and there’s no sign of that goose stopping laying its golden eggs anytime soon.
Do please tell us all about this sea power Northcode, is there any large-output tidal energy project anywhere in Scotland that is making a profit and hasn’t had a significant government subsidy?
Aidan
Got to start somewhere..
Hey ho, once it’s up and running a pints bet on how the energy cables delivering to the mainland will be divied- up..
No
Can just hear H McH squeaking while clutching pearls on hearing that!
“9/10ths rule Britannia/ Merry Old Englands (stand up everyone now and salute) property!!!
Nothing to do with the sponging Untermenschen Jockonese!
The entity (this side of the Levant), that can do no wrong in his/ it’s eyes/ programming 🙂
Just off the top of my heid, I believe the peat in Scotland’s peat bogs has the capacity to generate the equivalent of 61 nuclear power stations for 104 years.
Of course, alert readers will note I haven’t specified how much power each nuclear power station produces – a figure that varies widely.
But then, dear auld Northy started it.
Fear not gentle readers. Scotland isn’t about to be dug up from end to end while her peat bogs are raped, any more than every sea loch, bay and inter-island strait is about to be littered with tidal barrages or rafts of wave generators. All of it linked with spiders webs of transmission cables marching up every glen and along the course of every river.
Because ordinary Scots won’t stand for it. Just as we won’t stand for a clot of turbines on every Munro right now.
Of course YL, and as with any nascent technology you would expect unit costs to come down as it becomes more mature. However, it certainly isn’t a big earner for Scotland right now and I think it’s pretty doubtful that it’ll ever operate without some subsidy, and therefore far from being a source of revenue Scotland could be left with an expensive loss making asset.
There are big tidal projects outwith Scotland (e.g. Swansea Bay) which have been rejected for this reason.
Confused: good comment. No public utility should be outwith state control for precisely the reasons you have listed. Also, the state would have the impetus and motivation to find the best sources of renewable energy, not the most profitable ones. Capitalism and globalisation simply do not work on the large scale because they will always destroy local bases for everything, leaving a country with no defences against lack of production of necessary and essential parts, food, etc. SMEs and small local cooperatives work well with a mixed economy, and where rates and taxes do not smother enterprise.
@Lorna
Globalisation has worked on the most stupendously successful scale for the Chinese.
Just as it is currently working unbelievably well for the Indians.
Sure, we Scots have been shafted, along with most Europeans and many North Americans too. But all of that happened because we in the west would rather vote for virtue signallers than vote for realists.
Wee Adolf! You never cease to amaze.
You wrote ‘Chinese’, that’s probably a first and way off your standard referencing them as ‘covid spreader scum’, what’s come over you? Are you running a temperature?
Maybe you’re softening to keep in line with the UK government’s apparent change in attitude. How on earth will you rationalise this with the ire shown by your favoured ‘Scotlands greatest living half son’?
Wonders will never cease, I await your non comprehending nonsense reply. You just can’t resist so take it away; Wee Adolf McHateface!
What a winner!
…silence came the reply…
Although he did manage to spew some nonsense in a later post of mine concerning his out and out racist hate.
What a winner! Who’d be Hatey?
“John Swinney was left humiliated on Wednesday night after his government lost a vote at Holyrood and were told to publish ALL documents held about the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH). SNP Ministers attempted to block this motion but were defeated after the Scottish Greens sided with the opposition parties.”
—————————————————-
Good – but will they actually do it?
(“The vote is non-binding, meaning that the government can still refuse to make public reports about the deadly Glasgow hospital. But this would make a mockery of the First Minister’s claims that he is running a “transparent” Executive, and that he listens to the concerns of other parties.”)
Confused,
The Green agenda ideology is going out of fashion, as is the Rules based order, according to Davos, its all about regaining trust apparently.
Just not quick enough,
One consolation is that the dopey Unions have realised a little bit late that they themselves are making employment redundant and therefore their own future employment,
A number of these unions are now protesting about the use of Green Energy is not a success it claimed to be, One in Scotland recently.
John Swinney SNP sits in a English parliament sent to Scotland, that is the meaning of the word ( devolved ) governance passed down to a lower level,
He Swears an oath to the monarch of England,
And its party being vetted in England first, prior to being allowed to Scotland, as a pretend Scottish party, as is with all the other political parties in Scotland.
And the civil servants in Scotland likewise follow the oath to the monarch of England, and the crown that is sovereign in England ,
but not in Scotland.
The facade appears to be as Scottish parliament, but the mechanics behind the devolved Scottish parliament passed down are all Westminster English parliament.
As Scotland does not and did not make a 1707 Treaty with the parliament of Great Britain or the united kingdom.
If John Swinney said we can have among the cheapest power in Europe why doesn’t he do it and say it often after it has been done.
Or is it just like politicians on panel shows and debates when we were still an EU member who said they would need permission to reduce or scrap vat on domestic fuel because it was in breach of their competition and state assistance laws which are still in place.
Are they acting in the interests of Scotland or obeying the EU.
“Are they acting in the interests of Scotland”
If the SNP leadership were acting in the interest of Scots we would have been independent in 2015 after election of the 56 ‘roaring lions’.
The 2015 election was the one when Nicola Sturgeon specifically stated that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence. Even with that ‘carrot’ for those not really sure about independence, they got 50% of the vote (not 50% of the electorate). Hardly a mandate for constitutional change.
Which election was it since then that independence parties got more than 50% of the vote? (much less 50% of the electorate
Are they “obeying the EU?”
That’s their plan for the future. In the last poll I’ve seen, 3/4th of Indy voters (BTW the latest poll shows 45% would vote yes) want their “independent” Scotland to be ruled by Brussels.
Which means they’re merely wanting to exchange one “foreign” (in their eyes, at least) ruler for another.
5 Regional Assemblies
During the second reading of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill 2002-03 the Conservative spokesman, David Davis, expressed support for a threshold: David Davis: …I have been describing the grounds on which a referendum provides an acceptable and democratic outcome. Our view is that a reasonable level for the threshold that determines a settled will is that at least half the people vote, and a majority are in favour of the change proposed. That is a reasonable measure of the popular will. If the proposal receives the support of at least 25 per cent. of the total electorate, it should carry the day. That is pretty reasonable. Let us consider the result of the Scottish referendum. That exceeded the 25 per cent. threshold by 49 per cent.
“Our view is that a reasonable level for the threshold that determines a settled will is that at least half the people vote, and a majority are in favour of the change proposed. That is a reasonable measure of the popular will. If the proposal receives the support of at least 25 per cent. of the total electorate, it should carry the day.”
I think David Davis’ idea is not unreasonable, although constitutional change when only 25% of the population has voted for it might be considered unrepresentative. There has never been even that level of support for independence expressed by voters in any election this century that I am aware of. As previously stated, prior to the 2015 election Nicola Sturgeon specifically stated that a vote for the SNP in that election was not a vote for independence.
Some good points made by David Davis and yourself, factchecker. My view is that if people can’t be arsed to vote, even on critical issues such as constitutional changes, then they need to suck up the result, whether or not they agree with it.
After all, that old canard “what difference does it make, they’re all the same” very clearly does not apply when a binary question is being asked.
It is not 25% of the Scottish population, It is a turnout of at least 50% of those registered to vote and a majority of those voting.
As far as I can see the total number registered to vote now is 4,241,800. 1,060451 votes needed and a turnout of 2,120900.
In 1997, 1,775,045 voted in favour of a Scottish parliament with a turnout of 60%.
Opinion polls have been as high as 58% in favour of independence and 66% when presented with a wellbeing economy approach.
@sam
You forgot to claim that support for Indy by True Scots can never be less than 100%
By definition.
Long before the arrival of The Christ the sixteen tribes held sway across the northern lands.
So effective were their strategies and guerrilla tactics in warfare that when Rome rocked up on the scene it dared march only as far as the realm of the Venicones and in time was forced to abandon the temporary forts it had built near Perth for the protection of its Legionaries and Auxilia when its advance into the Northland was halted by the ‘barbarian’.
The Damnonii held the land to the west while the Caledonii held the Northwest; the Venicones held the East and the North with help from the Taexali and the Vacomagi.
The remaining eleven tribes sent support to the five defending the three fronts when needed.
These names are not what the tribes called themselves, but are instead the names given to them by the Greco-Roman geographer, Ptolemy, as presented on his map of what the Romans called Northern Britain and eventually Caledonia after the Caledonii.
Ptolemy’s map places the Caledonii (the largest of the sixteen tribes) spread across the central Highlands in that land Southwest of a people called the Vacomagi who held the territory that is now Moray and the Spey valley.
Much of what is now Aberdeenshire is shown as lying within the territory of the Taexali, while Fife was the home of a tribe called The Venicones – to the west and south of the Vericones was the land of the Damnonii, the deep ones, the valley dwellers… my people.
Together the sixteen were given the name Picti, the painted ones, by the Romans and their land named Pictavia.
And then some centuries later the Irish Scotti snuck their way into Pictavia through a back door and, most likely using trickery and pretending to be all chummy the way them Gaels still do to this day when they want something aff ye, gained the trust of the Picts who were ‘persuaded’ to join with the Scotti and to name their country Scotland and their people the Scots.
The rest, as they say, is history.
So you don’t even grant them the basic courtesy of calling our ancestors by their own names?
Preferring to use the, no doubt condescending and disparaging, epithets landed on them by the foreign, aggressive, destroying and killing, colonisers.
Shame on you, Northy.
Some scented, effete fop, a lying tool of the coloniser, who never came within 1000 miles of here, is still controlling what you think and write today through his putrid propaganda.
Choice! And that coming from the man who’s variously named vast populations as:
Covid spreaders
Orcs
Camel jockeys
Rag heads…
Need I go on?
Who’d be Hatey?
Naw, Dave, that’s nae richt.
I’d hae wrote Camel Shaggers.
And ye forgoat ane. In an Independent Scotland, the untermenschen will be kent as Daves.
Tak a wee bow! Ye’ve earned it!
Gaels and Picts combined to face the threat of the Vikings. Over time their cultures merged.
“Over time their cultures merged.”
Linguistic evidence rather suggests divergence. In most former Pictish areas from the lowlands to the north east, far north and northern isles we see eventual formation and development of the distinct Scots language, certainly since the late medieval period, and with Gaelic limited to parts of the highlands and the isles to the west.
Lorna Campbell says:
29 January, 2026 at 2:12 pm
“AI spews out according to that which you put in, Cynicus. ”
======
Absolutely correct, Lorna
“If it had been asked to give an answer that reflected the actual law, it would have given a judgement far less ‘trans’-oriented and more balanced, but would have had to acknowledge the UKSC ruling which would have entirely scuppered the Health Board’s case. “
=======
We do not know the question(s) put by Judge Kemp’s injudicious “judicial colleague”.
Even so, I don’t think we are in disagreement here. Bear with me a moment while I pretend to be AI and scrutinise what you wrote:
“Back in your boxes, plebs.”
Now, back to reality.
WHOOPS!
It wasn’t LORNA Campbell but STUART Campbell who wrote those words.
In real life, I was myself victim twice in recent months to similar output by AI, as I first posted some weeks ago.
One was about The real life Maria von Trapp (of The Sound of Music fame); a second closer to home, is the Scottish writer, Gerald Warner (2025 novel, A Fateful Promise).
Some of Maria’s biographical details were plainly rubbish, viz. she bore 10 or 12 children (which, I cannot remember) including some when she was nudging or over 70 years of age! AI’s large language model (LLM) had also scooped up text about births to a much younger namesake.
The case of Gerald Warner was even more egregious.
AI conflated the still living Scottish writer’s details with those of an American author, Gerald Warner BRACE who died in 1978.
Unlike von Trapp, I challenged this absurdity. When I asked AI how a long-dead author could write and publish a book in 2025, I received the reply that Gerald Warner BRACE’ s recent book was published posthumously, in 2025!
So, as with von Trapp (and my all-too-human but trivial Campbell examples), the LLM had conflated two different people with the same surname in whole in part. In addition, its inference engine doubled down on the original false claim.
It was, seemingly, committed a goal- directed strategy of defending the original conclusion, instead of critically considering the new evidence aqq a A. With AI we can have a new version of GIGO: Gold dust in, garbage out!
It failed, spectacularly, the Turing Test on this very simple case (Gerald Warner/ Gerald Warner Brace).
The Judge Kemp Fiasco, dealing with far more complex issues, had many more opportunities to go wrong- especially if AI was deployed by a colleague.
What confidence can you retain in your own gold dust- ‘to give an answer that reflected the actual law, […that..]it would have given a judgement far less ‘trans’-oriented and more balanced, but would have had to acknowledge the UKSC ruling…’.?
I suspect an even more spectacular failing of the Turing Test with garbage out as the LLM aggregated multiple textual references to your inputs and doubled down on even more bizarre, goal-driven output.
Since I first posted on these issues, I have noticed AI models with small print along the lines of: “AI responses may include mistakes.”
That is from GOOGLE AI , a few seconds ago. For mistakes, read, “AI hallucinations”. Or, if Judge Kemp is reading this: CAVEAT EMPTOR.
Aidan: the Treaty could not have been spent on the accession of the two states into the one state, the UK of GB. The Treaty created the UK as the primary legislation, not the subsequent Acts which translated the Treaty into the UK of GFB constitutional law insofar as they are shared. The Scottish Treaty of Union was very explicit on Scotland legal system, education, etc.
Just because one party to the Treaty has been less than honest, does not make the Treaty invalid. The UK cannot exist if the Treaty falls, is resiled or otherwise brought low. So many lies, half-truths and presumptions are made that it is far beyond time to have the Treaty examined properly by constitutional lawyers from both Scotland and England. The breaching of the Treaty Articles almost from day one, and by only on e party to the Treaty – i.e. England, is itself;f grounds for having it resiled.
Don’t think about what this committee or that committee in either the Commons or the Lords has said about the Treaty. Start thinking about why the British government brings it out of retirement every time it faces a real constitutional crisis – because it is still extant!
Okay, but in his opinion on the subject Lord Hope of Craighead said explicitly that the treaty did extinguish upon the creation of the new state of Great Britain, and this is therefore law by virtue of the fact that he stated it.
I don’t know who you could mean by a “proper constitutional lawyer”, Lord Hope was the dean of the faculty of advocates, the most senior judge in Scotland and the deputy president of the Supreme Court.
Aidan, you said; “in his opinion on the subject Lord Hope of Craighead said explicitly that the treaty did extinguish upon the creation of the new state of Great Britain”
When did he say this, and in which document did he state that as a formal finding?
In 1999 the question was formally asked in parliament whether taking away the right of hereditary lords to sit at Westminster would breach the Treaty, and that it was asked at all made it abundantly clear that the Treaty was not extinguished, because its terms are still binding on the UK, and must be met.
It is therefore still definitive for what it contains, and irrelevant on what it does not.
Neither party to it is entitled to presume an authority over the other’s territory or people that the other party did not unambiguously cede in the treaty. There is no blanket statement in it that gives the English half of the Union any authority over Scotland or over Scotland’s MPs, and that means both bodies of their MPs must agree to any bill or motion being considered, since those two bodies are the sole formal representatives of their still sovereign parents.
Scotland’s unceded sovereignty should immunise Scotland from any English overreach. That it doesn’t means the Treaty has been breached, and Scotland’s sovereignty is constantly violated every times its MPs are overruled by English MP majorities.
@Xaracen – I posted one of the quotes from the judgement further up in the thread. You can read the whole judgement here; link to publications.parliament.uk
So we have two diametrically opposed viewpoints. One is yours, and the other is the former dean of the faculty of advocates and deputy president of the Supreme Court. Which do you think is a more authoritative statement of law?
@Aidan; I’ve been looking into the matter more deeply, and it turns out that you over-egged your argument.
Lord Hope’s ‘explicit’ remark that “the treaty did extinguish upon the creation of the new state of Great Britain” was indeed said by him, but it was clearly obiter, not ratio, and therefore non-binding. This means your claim that “this is therefore law by virtue of the fact that he stated it.” is simply wrong. It is also incorrect because he did not make that remark as a member of the Supreme Court because it didn’t exist in 1999, and wouldn’t for another decade.
And even if the case were repeated identically at the Supreme Court, the ‘explicit’ comment would still have been obiter, and thus non-binding.
The only binding element of the case was the formal finding that removing the right of hereditary lords would not breach the Treaty. That was the ratio, and its status would have been identical in both courts, as would the status of the non-binding obiter.
Sorry that is absolute nonsense;
Firstly, the Supreme Court was the successor to the House of Lords, with the House of Lords until that point acting as the final appellant court in the U.K.
However, Lord Hope in this context was providing an opinion as a member of a committee, not acting as a judge on final appeal. There is therefore no such thing as ratio and obiter in this context. What there is however, is probably the most explicit and detailed analysis of the ToU and its continuing impact by (at the time) the most senior sitting judge from Scotland. By virtue of his position, his position can be taken as an authoritative statement of law whereas yours cannot. In any case the suggestion that Lord Hope would have come to a different conclusion in ration rather than obiter is far fetched to say the least!
I’m glad you’ve actually read the opinion though. On a scale of 1 -10 with 1 being the least how well do you think it supports your own view?
@Aidan;
An opinion delivered by Lord Hope in a parliamentary committee has no binding legal force, because he was not acting in a judicial capacity, as you have asserted; only a court, sitting as a court, can create binding law.
No court, including the UK Supreme Court, has ever found that the Treaty of Union extinguished itself.
Correction, I posted too quickly.
An opinion delivered by Lord Hope in a parliamentary committee has no binding legal force, because he was not acting in a judicial capacity, as you have asserted; only a court, sitting as a court, can create binding law, and Parliament can create binding law through legislation. No court, including the UK Supreme Court, has ever found that the Treaty of Union extinguished itself.
Final correction, I promise!
An opinion delivered by Lord Hope in a parliamentary committee has no binding legal force, because he was not acting in a judicial capacity, as you have asserted. Only Parliament can create binding law through legislation, and courts can only interpret and apply that law when sitting as courts. No court, including the UK Supreme Court, has ever found that the Treaty of Union extinguished itself.
Yes, people with the same surname could become confused, one for the other. It doesn’t need AI to do that. However, I’ll say only this – and for the last time – the emphasis on the ‘woke’/’trans’ side was no mistake of a surname or first name. The AI had to have been asked to provide a judgement which was the only course open to it if the information fed into it was nothing but Stonewall law. Can you think any other case with Forstater in it where a confusion might lie? I certainly can’t. No, if you think about it logically, you will see that it is a case of ordure in, ordure out again. That judgement did not mention the actual law at all – and especially not the UKSC ruling which is far better known than any other case on this issue.
“..the new evidence aqq A”
======
Sorry for this gibberish in my long post above. The phrase should read, “the new evidence advanced “
I have just encountered an “AI detector “ online: it is called justdone.com.
I am afraid I cannot recommend it to Judge Kemp or to anyone else. I have tested it on my own large post above. It yields the following statistics:
58% AI generated
11% Paraphrased AI
31% Human written text
Even the 11% is an overestimate unless the two Campbells, Lorna and Stuart are really AI bots who are fooling us into believing they are human beings.
I also did a word count (541) and I make 11% of that to be over 60 words. Even my verbatim quotes from actual AI output do not reach that number.
The 59% is for the birds- unless I myself am also an AI bot!
AI;
The nadir of the intelligent, talented, capable, skilled and thinking person IMO.
Zero effort, zero time spent mastering a craft. Skills/ professions gained in a flash..
The easier things are “got”, the less cherished and respected they become.
We are entering a dangerous new phase in our societies development..
If the lights go out I wonder what percentage would be able to light a fire to heat (when the matches inevitably run out) and help feed our vulnerable young and old?
Dumbing down through rampant over confidence and hubris!
Scary stuff..
You might want to consider that AI could already be sufficiently smart to be able to detect when it has been asked to do something by a liar.
And having detected that, see no impediments to lying in its response.
Take many of the posts on here, for example. The truth is stretched past breaking point in pursuit of petty points scoring and grievance mongering every day. That’s par for the course for many people – why should readers expect them to use a tool, that learns by following examples, to generate results that are any different?
Scotland is endowed with wind energy. Already Scotland produces more than twice the power that it needs. Scotland is also blessed with hydro schemes and pump storage.
That is now but over the coming years absolutely huge wind farms will be installed off coast of Scotland. And when I say huge, these latest schemes are of the largest in the world.
But with what benefit to Scotland you may ask. Well undernoted is the 2023 average electricity prices across a selection of other energy rich countries. Scotland’s electricity price is around £0.30 per kwh -( or $0.44 )
Household electricity prices worldwide in September 2023, for major oil+gas producing countries (in U.S. dollars per kilowatt-hour)
Scotland/UK 0.44
USA 0.17
Mexico 0.12
Norway 0.11
UAE 0.08
Russia 0.06
Venezuela 0.05
Saudi Arabia 0.05
Qatar 0.03
Nigeria 0.02
Iran 0.02
(Source: Statista)
The contrast of the price of energy in energy rich Scotland, which also has oil and gas is utterly astounding. Norway as an example is one quarter, yes one quarter of the rice tyhe people of Scotland pay.
And Norway also has the biggest per citizen pension fund in the entire world.
Frankly, the plunder of power resources in Scotland is a repeat of the Irish Famine where food was exported out while the people starved.
But yes, just look at the energy price difference. Look also at where does the Scottish power get exported to, and ask where is the money going.
When you realise what Blair did in iraq, you then realise what Westminster is viciously determined to do what ever is needed to retain the colonial golden goose.
The plunder continues unabated. But that of course what the British Empire was all about – plunder. And Scotland is the last colony to be plundered.
.
One thing to also consider is that with the rapid development of AI the industry needs two very key things
1) Huge amounts of electrical power
2) Suitable space for data centres.
AI will use utterly huge amounts of power. An example of this is the proposal for a new data centre in Airdrie. This will need the same amount of power as the entire Greater Glasgow area. And that is only one data centre.
Power is the absolute choke point for data centres or no data centres. So are we with our blessing of energy going to become a key high tech data centre, or are we going to send our power down south through the sub sea interconnectors being increasingly constructed to take power out of Scotland.
And that is another reason why Scotland as a nation has to cease to exist. Scotland’s resources are England’s resources. They cannot let it go and they will not let it go.
And as a little aside, Ireland had to rein back on data centres due to the inability of power generation and the grid infrastructure.
And that’s another vreason why if Jock doesn’t wake up he will soon be dead meat.
Sure, we can run data centres on intermittent wind power. Once our entire economy is dependent on AI (because human workers have been superseded), it won’t matter if the data centres go down for a few hours or days while we all enjoy some glorious, sunny, windless high pressure weather.
Shame about the Irish. One would have thought they get much the same winds as us.
Of course, the people who are arguably the most technically advanced in the world, the Chinese, are claiming to not only be making massive breakthroughs in “low energy” AI, but in fusion power too. Limitless, cheap power, wherever and whenever you want it, with no radioactive waste to worry about.
Other than the above caveats, willie, a good post though.
Good luck David Toshak.
Yet another victim of the woo woo deviancy/ degeneracy agenda placed high up on the list of priorities of the parish cooncil of certain devolved powers on the back of voters who were actually voting for progress on independence!
Special place in hell for Swinney, Sturgeon and the rest of the san heidrin of gender bender zealots.
I note with some degree of irony that many politicians while eulogising the passing of Jim Wallace claim he pretty much made the parish of certain devolved powers at the bottom of Edinburghs Royal Mile what it is today.
Jeez, hardly a rousing endorsement eh?!
Not by comparison with your lifetime’s achievements, no.
You do well to disparage those so much less successful than yourself, YL.
I see no implied self-aggrandizement in YL’s comment
“I see no implied self-aggrandizement”
How about the disparagement I refer to? See any of that?
It’s a perfectly natural part of human interaction, Oneliner. When we are forced to endure somebody putting down someone who has completed noteworthy and historically important feats, we are entitled to inquire about the lofty pedestal from which the critic pontificates.
These inquiries, put simply, can be “So what have you ever achieved?”
BTW. See any cultural and linguistic colonisation in your own post?
“So what have you ever achieved?”
Look in a mirror and ask yersel that, ya fucking roaster.
But I expect you are looking in the mirror constantly onywey.
How’s the thread derailing gan the day?
“So what have you ever achieved?”
No mirror needed, James, to see I’ve achieved the writing of a simple statement that nevertheless strains your comprehension past destruction. I’ll repeat it with capitalised emphasis on the bits you failed to understand:
“putting down someone WHO HAS COMPLETED NOTEWORTHY AND HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT FEATS”
Neither Young Lochinvar, nor indeed Oneliner, have achieved anything noteworthy in their lives, let alone historically important.
And neither, of course, have you.
And neither of course, have I, but I’m not the one criticising those who have, and those who being dead, can’t speak up for themselves.
I’m busy enough deservedly criticising useless, clueless mouth breathers like yourself.
Anyway, Hatey – how are the wife and kids?
Tribunal hearing in Edinburgh. Began on 28/1/2026. Still going.
Tribunal Tweets has links to their coverage of the hearing from the start of proceedings.
link to threadreaderapp.com
“Alf Baird says:
29 January, 2026 at 9:31 pm
“Over time their cultures merged.”
Linguistic evidence rather sugggests divergence”.
Robert McColl Millar: “At the end of the first millennium, Scotland remained a patchwork of different ethnic and cultural groups, often speaking different languages. Scandinavian dialects were spoken in Orkney and Shetland and in a broad swathe along the northern and western coasts; in particular in the Western Isles. Pictish was spoken in the north and east of the country; its near relative British in the south-west. Gaelic was used in the west and was actively spreading in the south-west; Northumbrian Old English in the south-east and in pockets of the south-west. Yet this apparent stasis, with a linguistic environment similar to that of 200 years before, is illusory: change was quickening. Gaelic was spreading among people in the north, east and south who had not previously used the language. This was particularly the case in the north, where Pictish was the ancestral language, associated with the ruling class and a culture which, while perhaps not as distinctive as earlier scholars suggested, certainly possessed distinctive localised traits. In the south-west, British was also in decline, residents switching to Gaelic and, eventually, the ancestor of Scots.”
Lorna Campbell.
Lorna Campbell / Aiden 29th Jan 8: 45 pm.
” History is not a record of What has happened, it is a record of what people think has happened”
The Articles, terms and conditions of the Treaty of Union cannot be touched by the parliament of Great Britain, and the moment that they attempt it, they dissolve their own foundation and Constitution,
The Treaty between Scotland and England was prior to the to the said British parliament,
So the British parliament cannot have the power so the to Alter its own foundation or act against the power that formed it
So the the parliament of Britain does not have the power or authority to close the Three Estates or come to that the 1707 Scottish parliament, as it closes its very foundation as the parliament of Great Britain,
These are not minor breaches of the treaty of union, they actually close the foundation and creation of the parliament,
So
“The Articles, terms and conditions of the Treaty of Union cannot be touched by the parliament of Great Britain, and the moment that they attempt it, they dissolve their own foundation and Constitution” – right according to whom? In our constitution system who has the authority to determine questions like that and what do they have to say about it?
You’re not another one who seems to believe they are the highest judicial authority in Scotland are you?
Absolutely agree, James. Any changes to the basic Treaty Articles is tantamount to resiling the Treaty because the changes have always been completely one-sided – and not to Scotland’s benefit.
It’s an interesting idea, Lorna.
But it comes up against the unimpeachable fact that no parliament can bind its successor.
Thus, in simple fact, no parliament can pass legislation that future parliaments can’t amend or repeal, and any parliament can change or repeal any existing legislation it chooses.
As to whether that’s fair to Scotland, the remedy for those who think it is not is to build a serious Independence movement that a majority of Scots will vote for.
And no, that doesn’t mean we necessarily want a referendum. A plebiscitary election will do just fine.
I note that yet another month has elapsed and so May is one month closer, and still, the idea of turning May’s HR election into a plebiscitary one remains stone dead.
As stone dead as the deadest of stone dead parrots.
Go figure.
In this sense hanging on the belief that the treaty of union still exists has its upside.
1) Scotlands people have [ Private Rights] which throws a big Spoke in the Wheel of data collection in Scotland and ID.
along with all your privately bought items like your car, television, your home …
2) It also would ban taxes or licences on your car to be on the roads in Scotland, not mentioned in the treaty of union,
3) it would abolish and make void the Hate Crime Bill and more than two biological sexes in Scotland under your private rights,
And finally all the British parliaments consolidation Bills, that interfere with the Private Rights of the people in Scotland would also includes Sovereignty, jury by trial and not deferring Scots law to the Supreme Courts in England, never mind your private rights of your rented or bought home not to fall foul of inheritance taxation or Council taxes, which not discussed or specifcally mentioned in the articles of the treaty of union between Scotland and England.
Private Rights in Scotland for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland [ not citizens ] and not mentioned as [ Citizens of the State ] or as [ Citizens of the English Crown ]
But as people and [ subjects within Scotland ]
You are right, H McH, as far as domestic legislation is concerned, but not international legislation, which a treaty is. A treaty is the primary legislation which turns something domestic into something greater, between two or more states. The Treaty of Union created – yes, created – the Union, and, therefore, the UK of GB. The Acts translated the Treaty into domestic legislation. Acts are always domestic legal entities, never international ones, as treaties are. The two legal entities use different legal language, too and are completely distinguishable from each other.
Any interference with the Treaty that was/is not legitimate, i.e. desuetude would be considered legitimate if it meant that more modern working would make more sense and avoid a law becoming onerous. However, dismantling the Treaty, which Westminster and Whitehall have done over the years is not legitimate, yet I have yet to hear a Scottish lawyer argue that point. Westminster operates on a lack of legitimacy in relation to Scotland and is acting ultra views in almost every situation.
Think of the Treaty of Rome, for example: it could not be dismantled to allow the UK to leave the EU because that would have ended the EU, but the domestic legislation which translated the Treaty of Rome (and the others) into domestic law could be repealed. A treaty must be resiled for it to fall. Note the different language: repeal and resile.
Take the Scottish parliament: most would say it’s a good thing on the whole; but Westminster, the seat of the UK of GB parliament had no remit to set it up without also setting up separate legislatures in all the parts of the UK, including England – not without specific agreement that England would not devolve – which, in itself, was illegitimate according to the Treaty. It would have been fine for Scotland to have a devolved parliament, but the Treaty itself made it incumbent upon England to devolve (as a country, and the second signatory to the Treaty of Union) at the same time, otherwise the Treaty of Union was breached and should have fallen.
That it didn’t is down to the Scots being too magnanimous and acquiescent. Always that acquiescence! Born of fear of the English, I suspect, the fear of going it alone and a total misunderstanding (a willing misunderstanding) of the Treaty itself. None of our politicians except Alec Salmond would have taken us to independence. Fearties. That is now starkly evident.
Aiden.
Logically and legal common sense.
Destroy the foundations of your house and it automatically falls.
Destroy the foundations of the created great Britain parliament and it automatically fails to stand.
Strangely this world wide knowledge seems to have by-passed your radar.
So you think that constitutional legal questions are determined by reference to vague anecdotes and metaphors and without reference to any recognised principles of law, and your “common sense” trumps the considered opinion of the most senior judge in Scotland?
Incidentally, have you had much of a track record of success that you can point to with this line of argument?
Gaelic is the language of the Scotti, the invader of Pictland who came from Ireland.
Gaelic bears no relation to either the language of the ancient Picts – a language unknown to modern scholars because no trace of it was left by the Picts – nor to the root language adopted and uniquely developed by the Picts and made their own in an act of rebellion against their Scotti interloper that today is known as Scots.
The Scotti assimilated the ruling class of the Picts but not the common folk who rejected Gaelic in favour of their own language.
It took several generations before the Pictish language was lost entirely to the Picts due to incessant Gael propaganda and the promotion of Gaelic as Pictland’s national language, much as we see the Scots language being lost to the ‘Scots’ and replaced by English today.
Eventually, the Picts ‘agreed’ to ‘merge’ with the Scotti who named the land they had invaded “Scotland” (because it sounded better than Scottiland) and the folk who lived there the Scots (because that name sounded better than the Scotti) – although neither of the Scotti’s names for the land they had invaded and the people they had assimilated sounded better than Pictland (or Pictavia – my preference) and the Picts.
Addendum (for interest only and of no relevance to the Pictland of today… or is it?):
The real name of the ‘Picts’, unknown to all but its own people, was the Almach frae the Gushet Neuk in Andromeda near the four star 30 Ari system, 136 light-years away in the constellation Aries… there in that place is a massive planet called Milach orbiting one of Ari’s stars and is the original home of the Almach… or as you humans know them, the Picts.
Few readers will know nor care that the word “pict” comes from the Latin. It is derived from a common root that survives to this day in English, the majority language of Scotland, as the words “picture”, “depict”, etc.
How delightfully typical of dear auld Northy that he endeavours mightily to raise yet another towering, tottering, collapsing edifice on the shifting sands of a lying, foreign, colonialist language, this time the Latin of the Roman invaders.
Both Sun Ra and Karlheinz Stockhausen said they were from Sirius, so the Picts hailing from somewhere in the Andromeda Constellation is not so far-fetched. The fact that Almach means ‘the earth kid’ (derived from an Arabic phrase) is perhaps a clue. Mind you, Mirach is a long way away compared to Sirius, at 198 light years from Earth, compared to Sirius’ 8.6. This begs the obvious question of how the Picts / Almach got from Mirach to Earth.
What also puzzles me is why the Almach did not hail from Almach itself, though at 385 light years away, it is an even longer journey. The fact that both Mirach and Almach are stars also complicates matters. The Almach must have found it very cold on arrival in the future Pictavia.
I believe that one of the Voyager spacecraft has just marked a major and unique achievement. It is now one light day away from Earth after around 48 years of travel.
That renders quibbling over the difference between 8 and 198 light years a touch academic!
Still, Northy’s a Pict and the Picts are from an exoplanet somewhere.
They’re the ultimate interstellar colonisers.
Send every last cant of them hame!
…and you still can’t spell ‘cunt’.
There was frequent contact between the Gaels and the Picts. The Gaels brought Christianity from Ireland into the west of Scotland. In the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries the Pictish elite first and later the population adopted Christianity through contact with Gaels.
The Picts put both Christian and Pictish symbols into their carved stones.
Pictish genes are found in present day west of Scotland populations and Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Picts, christened thus by the Romans who were apparently impressed by their tattoos, left plenty of evidence of their language behind in the form of place names.
You just need to know what to look for. A clue being it looks/sounds vaguely Welsh.
Anyone here from Penicuik? (Modern Welsh equivalent Pen-y-Gog: Hill of the Cuckoo).
Why do you think that despite Scottish Gaelic being a descendant of ancient Irish Gaelic, not a single mountain in Ireland is prefixed with Ben/Beinn?
Because the ancient Pictish/Welsh/Brythonic word for head “Pen” was absorbed into Scottish Gaelic as “Ben/Beinn”.
Bloody Picts…they’re everywhere!
Here you go, Bob.
Ben Bulbin (Sligo)
Ben Lugmore (Mayo)
Ben Gorm (Mayo)
Ben Baun (Galway) – part of the Twelve Bens range, which also includes Ben Corr, Ben Collaghduff, Ben Breen and Ben Lettery.
In Irish, the Twelve Bens are Na Beanna Beola.
I think regulars are used to posters just making stuff up, but it’s daft to make stuff up about simple matters of fact.
LOL…
That’ll teach me.
They are.
A Treaty is a formal agreement legally binding between two or more Sovereign States,
Treaties are roughly Contracts,
All treaties must generally comply with International Law of ( Pact Sunt Servanda) agreements must be kept. To be Valid.
The contracting parties- referred to as either the official title of the Head of State, ( but not including the personal name, eg His majesty, The Queen or king or his Excellency, or The president, or the government of etc,
Reservations & Caveats;
A party cannot cannot add a reservation or modify the legal obligations
They must be included at the time of signing or Ratification, Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, unless they are not in keeping or are inconsistent with the goals and purpose of the treaty,
I guess dissolving the Three Estates of Scotland and the Parliament of Scotland from the 1707 Treaty of union in 1707 would be considered inconsistent with the goals and purposes of that Treaty to bring Scotland into a union with England.
So the latest Tribunal hearing into a custody officer being sacked for not pandering to a woo woo gender bender to use.whatever sweetie names, as opposed to his legal name goes ahead.
People have legal names. So why can someone be sacked for using someone’s legal name. Do judges sentence rapists or murders or common or garden criminals have to refer.to the individual being sentenced by their sweetie name.
Can you imagine, your are Sweetie, or Pussy Lips or Lola or Fluffie or whatever found guilty being the words of the judge. But that is what the Scottish Prison Service seems to be failing which you get the sack. That’s the SPS policy.
Its lunacy. And personaly I’ve seem similar diktat in an Argyll secondary school where teachers were instructed to use any name a pupil gave them – and keep it secret between pupil and teacher. I haveva physical hard copies of the protocols advisory handouts given out to teachers. – with a different one given out to pupils.
It’s wild wild wild wacko woo woo.
Anyway, that’s where we are. Wwll done John Swinney and one has to wonder what his pet name is.Tony Blair is reputed to have had one. So come on John, what your real mame.
Or am I missing something?
Willie @ 12.26.
Whilst it’s the same basic principle, former Army medic, 51 yr old David Toshack whose on daughter now lives as a male was discharged during traing because he refused to refer to prisoners other than by their biological sex.
It wasn’t actually the name to which they wished to be addressed which concerned him, but that biological males wished to be referred to as “she”, which he as a practising Christian (and also as a matter of medical fact) refused to do.
Thanks for the comments Sven.
I wasn’t aware that David Toshack’s daughter now lives as a male. That may well be a cause of concern for him.
But going back to what currently appears to being pled is that he was sacked for applying the biological pronoun of the prisoner.
And for that crime of not misnaming a biological man he got sacked. That is wild.
As to my comments about formal guidance handouts being given to teachers in an Argyll school this occured in Hermitage Academy where,if a pupil wanted to be known by a special name, teachers were told to abide by that, keeping it secret if required.
Now that is wild and a potential recipe for real problems. Secret pet names? Who on earth would sanction policy like that. And maybe, if anyone from Argyll and Bute education authority is reading they could comment in case I am missing something.
Lorna, I think this comment belongs elsewhere.
As does this one.
Indeed!
You may have encountered this before: in the heyday of ‘ordinary- language philosophy’ at the University of Oxford, student examinees encountered the following:
“Is this question?”
Indeed!
You may have encountered this before: in the heyday of ‘ordinary- language philosophy’ at the University of Oxford, student examinees encountered the following:
“Is this a question?”
@Cynicus
In reply to your two posts:
One is, one isn’t.
Hatey McHateface says:
31 January, 2026 at 8:25 am
“@Cynicus
In reply to your two posts:
One is, one isn’t”
==========
A very good effort at my smart-arse tweak on the original- in which only that containing the indefinite article appeared.
Student essayists wrestled in manuscript on the meaning of “this”, the possible redundancy of the (punctation) question mark, the significance of “a” (ha!). Several pre-Lewinsky/Bill Clinton suckers hypothesised on alternatives depending on what the meaning of “is” is. One rebellious Heideggerian existentialist, who loathed Oxford philosophy, returned a script completely blank, except for the date and his signature in beautiful copperplate.
However, these hectares of ingenious reasoning did not carry the day, that went, Summa cum laude, to the student who answered in the manner below of Sven
31 January, 2026 at 10:15 am:
The classic answer being, I seem to recall, ” Only if this is an answer “.
Hatey McHateface says:
31 January, 2026 at 8:25 am
“@Cynicus
In reply to your two posts:
One is, one isn’t”
==========
A very good effort at my cheeky tweak on the original- only that containing the indefinite article appeared.
Student essayists wrestled in manuscript on the meaning of “this”, the possible redundancy of the (punctation) question mark, the significance of “a” (ha!).
Several pre-Lewinsky/Bill Clinton suckers hypothesised on alternatives to what the meaning of “is” is.
One fish out of water, a rebellious Heideggerian existentialist, who loathed Oxford philosophy, returned a script completely blank, except for the date and his signature in beautiful copperplate which he spent an hour perfecting.
However, these hectares of cerebral labour did not carry the day, that went, Summa cum laude, to the student who answered in the manner below of
Sven, 31 January, 2026 at 10:15 am
‘The classic answer being, I seem to recall, ” Only if this is an answer “.’
========
These days, a picture of any TRA from the Rev’s rogues gallery might precede the text: “is this a woman ?”
Over to you, Oxford.
Hatey McHateface says:
31 January, 2026 at 8:25 am
“One is, one isn’t”
==========
A very good effort at my cheeky tweak on the original- only that containing the indefinite article appeared. My long reply, composed elsewhere and copied here has been moderated out of existence. For its conclusion, see
Sven, 31 January, 2026 at 10:15 am
‘The classic answer being, I seem to recall, ” Only if this is an answer “.’
========
These days, a picture of any TRA from the Rev’s rogues gallery might precede the text: “is this a woman ?”
Over to you, Oxford.
@Cynicus
My eyesight isn’t what it was. Before I reply, answer me this:
Is this a dagger I see her grasping before her?
The parliament of the Great Britain or Uk cannot add a reservation or alter its original dates on the treaty of union or a devolved government or the later Scotland act to apply to Scotland.
They were not signed or ratified by both Countries in the treaty of union
As it is not the foundation of the 1707 treaty of union, and Scotland holds no such 1707 treaty with either of those two later parliaments.
I love lectures on “history” by people who can’t even construct one sentence in recognizable English.
Rev, perhaps you could write a novella about this.
“In my novella I tried to show that society had been poisoned by lies…I expressly meant to write a book about a society gone mad.” Lydia Chukovskaya’s novella about Stalin’s purge [written in 1939 Russia after her husband had been arrested and shot].
It’s time for a contemporary version, don’t you think? And you are well-qualified to write it.
“In our study, we looked at how genetically similar the Pictish genomes were to other ancient genomes from Britain and Ireland, Scandinavia and mainland Europe dating to the Iron Age, Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Viking periods. Our findings support a prevailing view that the Picts descended from Iron Age groups in Britain and Ireland.”
link to theconversation.com
PEER: CI CIVIL SERVICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS DANGERS OF ‘POLITICISED POLICING’
Baroness Fox of Buckley has commended The Christian Institute’s legal action against the Civil Service’s taxpayer-funded participation in Pride marches.
During a House of Lords debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Director of the Academy of Ideas told her fellow Peers that the case against “civil servants marching in branded Civil Service Pride t-shirts” demonstrates why it is important to consider removing the police from the Equality Act 2010’s public sector equality duty.
The Institute’s legal action followed a successful challenge against Northumbria Police’s participation in Pride events, where the court ruled that Pride was “political” and a breach of laws on police impartiality. The Institute argues that the Civil Service’s official endorsement and funding of similar marches also contravenes Civil Service impartiality.
‘DISTRACTING’
Lady Fox stated: “I wish that more public bodies would commit themselves to effectively carrying out their functions and not get distracted by the public sector equality duty. The police, I am afraid, have become far too embroiled in politicised equality initiatives”.
“For the public, the idea of a politicised police force fuels the argument that the police may be unfair or discriminatory in who they target for, for example, non-crime hate incidents. Though we have seen the back of those, they were the blight of many a person’s life and destroyed many citizens’ lives.
“We need reassurance that the public sector equality duty has not been used to distract the police or to politicise policing. All the evidence would imply that it has been, and that is something that the Government should be concerned about.”
RAINBOW LANYARDS
Last year, the Institute formally commenced its legal action against the Prime Minister and the Civil Service.
The challenge is being brought because the Institute believes official participation in Pride gives the public the impression that civil servants have taken sides on controversial issues on which they ought, by law, to be impartial.
The Institute’s Deputy Director Simon Calvert said: “I have been working in public policy for decades. I’ve been shocked by how many civil servants wear Pride lanyards in our meetings with them, even when those meetings are specifically about conflicts with that ideology.
“Sitting in front of a phalanx of civil servants in rainbow lanyards gives the impression that their minds are closed on the issues we are discussing. It certainly does not communicate the kind of neutrality that taxpayers expect of civil servants.”
(The Christian Institute, 30 Jan 2026)
link to christian.org.uk
“communicate the kind of neutrality that taxpayers expect of civil servants”
Odd. I thought we all understood that Scottish civil servants expect their biased and partial views to be supported by taxpayers. How else would civil servants now be in a position to police our stated opinions and punish us for voicing those that differ from their establishment orthodoxy?
We need a Trump-like disruptor to throw the lot of them onto the street. Let them preach their reality-denying BS to citizens queuing for the bus.
If they dare.
For anyone interested the new ferry built in Turkey – Isle of Islay is currently sailing down the east coast of Spain heading for Gibraltar on it’s way to Scotland.
You can watch it’s fascinating journey live here:
link to vesselfinder.com
Beautifully painted windows on her!
She’s sailing under the flag of the UK, a fictional country. Hope the Ukies don’t conclude she’s part of the shadow fleet and sink her.
Having followed more rapid and longer delivery voyages of profitable private operators over the years, this over-relaxed loss-making taxpayer-subsidised CalMac ferry delivery looks like its off on a relaxing Round-The-Med cruise for the benefit of London HQ Union members and probably some of the senior management as weel.
Hopefully Islay islanders might see it in time for the busy Easter period!
Also on the downside is the inevitability of very much higher than normal vessel operating costs (50%+ higher than private operators) for the 30 years the ship is expected to operate. That’s an added cost of around £5m/vessel a year compared with private catamaran operations, i.e. an extra £150m at today’s costs, much of it for excessive crewing numbers.
Added to the extra £30m it costs to build a CalMac monohull rather than a catamaran, such as the MV Alfred operating successfully these last few years on the Arran-Troon run or MV Pentalina on the Pentland Firth which has been in service for close to 20 years now.
And they wonder what the reasons for the ongoing ‘Scottish ferries crisis’ are???
Not as if ferry cock ups are anything new. Our soon to be retired ferry The Isle of Mull when launched was found to be too heavy so would be unable to carry enough cars so they cut it in half and welded another section in the middle of the hull which I am sure caused a cost overrun and a delay in it entering service.
Yes David, and we can thank the Mull & Iona Ferry Committee for proving the inept nature of public sector ferry procurement in Scotland including the intentional exclusion from public tenders of lower cost proven catamaran ferry designs, which always results in higher taxpayer expense and build problems relating to poorly specified prototype monohulls:
link to mullandionaferrycommittee.org
Alf, It’s great to see you posting in your field of authentic and significant expertise.
The Scottish government,Transport Scotland, Calmac and the rest have done islanders no service by ignoring your proposals in recent years
I am not going to hold my breath that Swinney will stop appeasing Trump even though it is becoming more and more obvious that Trump is a Child Rapist.
The Wokists in the are silent about Trumps apparent Peccadilloes in their eyes but it seems the Toxic Pronoun obsessed Greens arent. Swinney is a very weak leader and looks like a very weak FM.
I suppose Trump being a Child Rapist is okay with the English Reform NAZI’s that skulk here. I guess they might like them young as in underage as well.
“becoming more and more obvious that Trump is a Child Rapist”
It has long been obvious how the dark forces in the western world go about removing public figures they dislike – hit them with accusations of sexual impropriety. It works like a charm every time because it plays into the western world’s obsessively unhealthy prurience about sex. Just look at how they weaponised that to do for Alex Salmond.
Is it better than what they do in Orcland (out the window they go) or Covid Central (house arrest and disappearance)? Each reader can make up her own mind.
But as you’ve made the accusation that President Trump is a child rapist twice in your post, Iain, how about a link or two to some evidence that isn’t just TDS back stabbing gossip, maliciously circulated by his political enemies?
You ken fit they say, Iain, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
As for your assertion that President Trump supporters are pedophiles (dinna be feart o the word, Iain), ye ken fit they say aboot that ane tae – every accusation is an admission.
Over to you, Iain. Best not reply out of yer heid at 3:25 AM, if you intend to make it a good one.
Evidence please, Iain? Nothing has come to light to suggest that Trump was involved in that way. It might, but it certainly hasn’t yet, who knows, but it simply is not there to date, so please stop making accusations that cannot be supported by evidence.
If those with money and power can be accused without evidence, the rest of us are easy meat.
Cynicus @ 02.06/02.07
The classic answer being, I seem to recall, ” Only if this is an answer “.
Sven, 31 January, 2026 at 10:15 am
Manuscripts of student essayists addressed matters like the meaning of “this”, the possible redundancy of the (punctation) question mark, the significance of the indefinite article, “a”!
Several pre-Lewinsky/Bill Clinton suckers hypothesised on alternatives to what the meaning of “is” is.
One fish out of water, a rebellious Heideggerian existentialist, who loathed Oxford philosophy, returned a script completely blank, except for the date and his signature in beautiful copperplate which he spent an hour perfecting.
However, these hectares of cerebral labour did not carry the day: that went, Summa cum laude, to the student whose attempt you correctly recall:
” Only if this is an answer “.’
?========?
These days, I understand, Oxford philosophy places less weight on that school of thought from the mid 20th century (influenced, ironically, by the great Cambridge philosopher Wittgenstein).
I propose a real- world tribute act to the famous exam question: perhaps a picture of “Isla Bryson” or any TRA from the Rev’s rogues gallery above the question : “is this a woman ?”
Over to you, Oxford.
OT, bit a uk company investing around £11bn in China for max profit, yet zero investment from China to the UK stinks!
Not even a wind turbine! What’s going on?
Well remembered’
Rev, coincidentally Persephone Books [8 Edgar Buildings, Bath] highlights this week a book on this exact same topic.
“In my novella I tried to show that society had been poisoned by lies…I expressly meant to write a book about a society gone mad.”
Author Lydia Chukovskaya’s husband had been arrested and shot in Stalin’s purge. The novel “Sofia Petrovna” describes the heroine’s initial incomprehension of the State’s corruption, gradually changing to realising that there was nothing decent left.
Sounds very familiar, doesn’t it?
Public enquiries!
What a failure they have become.
I see “Honest” John is claiming no political pressure was applied to get the Queen Lizzie hospital up and running..
And surprise surprise those involved in the enquiry don’t even seem to have thought to ask!
The local parish cooncil of certain devolved powers just sat there like mewling nursery new attendees as all this just went above their heads? Aye right..
Contrast with the ongoing ferry fiasco where Forbes (responding to the newest over-run) said they would hold Fergussons to account for spending and delivery of the last ship.
So what were the health ministers during this time doing? Playing Twister?
Oh for the days when proper records were kept and maintained.
Swinney has misled and should go. Only perhaps then will he magically recall who knew what and who said what.
PS; posted in the wee small hours. Deal with it milk monitors..
I had to think hmmm at the apparent “speed” with which good ol’ Uncle Sam’s Justice Department has released an avalanche of files concerning Epsteins dealings.
Something of that speed wouldn’t have happened here, but well, just look at the backlash it’s received over shoddy redaction.
That would never have happened here either!
Perhaps Swinneys super hero/ villain (as suits your viewpoint) alter ego Redacto-man in his barcode themed onesie should be hired out to Uncle Sam’s justice department at a suitably hefty hourly rate to show them just how it’s done.
The money gained could help offset the Glen Sannox fiasco he doesn’t seem to know much about on his watch.
Price to pay for sleeping while at the wheel John..
Lorna Campbell says:
31 January, 2026 at 3:40 pm
“Evidence please, Iain? Nothing has come to light to suggest that Trump was involved in that way”
=========
Still not hard evidence, Lorna. But will this be the start of a trail of crumbs?
There is no mention of Trump’s sexual partner (if any) or her age. But this story might be worth following
link to middleeasteye.net
” No parliament can bind its successor”
Wether that is the law of England, the law of Scotland or the law of Great Britain or the law of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, ( the latter two being out the equation )
Would apply to Scotlands 1707 parliament that existed briefly in the treaty of union from 1707- 1707.
The parliament of England or the parliament of Great Britain could not bind the old parliament of Scotland.
Which the great Britain parliament committee also expressed.
That contrary law cancels the very treaty of union obligations.
Lorna Campbell
31 January, 2026 at 3:40 pm?
“Evidence please, Iain? Nothing has come to light to suggest that Trump was involved in that way”
?=========
Still not hard evidence of, “ in that way”, Lorna.
But will this be the start of a trail of crumbs?
link to tinyurl.com
I find religious people absolutely terrifying now. Extreme orthodoxy of EVERY main Abrahamic faith is frightening. People in power who espouse extreme Abrahamic orthodoxy- of ANY brand – will be the death of us all.
“Extreme orthodoxy of EVERY main ABRAHAMic (my emphasis) faith is frightening” -Marie
========
Trump’s son in law Kushner donates to the Lubavitch Chabad nutters; close to American evangelical fruitcakes gagging for the “Rapture” is Trump’s envoy to Jerusalem, where Ben-Gvir and similar charmers yearn to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s second most sacred site, and rebuild the Temple on its ruins;
the Sunni Salafists await the Mahdi who in the last days will battle in Jerusalem the antichrist before (or alongside) Abu Issr (Jesus); the Shia think the Mahdi was their last Imam and is “occulted”. Many already take the US to be the Antichrist awaiting doom and judgment.
As the USS ABRAHAM Lincoln carrier fleet heads for Shi’ite Iran, what could possibly go wrong?
@Cynicus
Seems fair enough to me. After all, the mosque is built on the ruins of the earlier temple. What goes around comes around.
You appear to believe there has to be a statute of limitations on ethnic cleansing. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you should state the time period you think should apply, after which every survivor’s descendent should just suck it up.
Whatever, you shouldn’t be surprised if those more directly involved disagree.
A thought-provoking video with two excellent speakers — especially relevant in the current geo-political climate:
link to youtube.com
Hatey McHateface says:
1 February, 2026 at 6:31 pm
“You appear to believe there has to be a statute of limitations on ethnic cleansing”
==========
And you appear to be somewhat muddled as to the identity of the ethnic cleansers.
The temple was destroyed, not by Palestinians, but by Romans in 70AD, almost 5 centuries before Arabs re-captured the city from the (Eastern) Roman Empire, then centred in Constantinople.
The site of the temple then was a rubbish dump. It was the Caliph who revered it as a sacred site and built the first, primitive mosque. It was rebuilt in stone some decades before Rome came calling again in the First Crusade -45 years after (Western) Rome’s break with Eastern Rome, Constaninople.
With the formation of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, the mosque served variously as quarters, stables and whore -house for the crusader knights who had cut the worshippers to pieces. Their carnage served as a template for the IDF in recent months and years but was small beer compared with the horrors of our own time.
So what goes round comes round? This will be music to the ears of Restorationists, Italian pagans who worship sex-based Roman deities like Jupiter and Venus (none of this gender stuff there!). By your logic, they should be allowed to demolish St Peter’s Basilica to recreate the majesty of Nero’s Circus whose site it disfigures.
Do you see the neat symmetry? Pagan Rome destroys the foremost Abrahamic sacred site almost 2000 years back and Roman pagans do the same in their own backyard today.
Best response to that effluent, Cynicus, is to tell you to awa and shite.
Get it all out and flushed. Perhaps you’ll feel better.
“By your logic”
What logic? I told you in my first post – those more directly involved disagree with you.
Take your biased, impartial, selective, hypocritical, one-sided readings of history up with them. Test them with your logic.
If you’re lucky, and they’re in a good mood, you might come out of it with no more than a bloody nose.
King James V1 of Scotland- was given a Second title of king James 1st of England.
Queen Elizabeth11 of England- was not given the second title as Queen Elizabeth 11 of Scotland.and couldn’t be officially.
Just queen Elizabeth 11 of England.
And the successor parliament of Great Britain for England was not binding on the 1707 parliament of Scotland.
Guid day tae awbody wha fidders aboot this gaitherin place.
Micht this Saubath day be tae yer likin an micht The Lord Himsel leuk doun upo ye an bless ye wi sum sma fauvours tae mak yer brief wee lives mair pleisant.
Aye, an the grace o the Lord Jesus Christ, and the luve o God, and the communion o the Haly Speerit, be wi ye aw whitiver yer fayth or nane.
An fir thaim wha be sinners an wha hiv turnt thair soor-face awa fae God… ye hae a guid day anaw. Tho ye maist likely dinna desarve it, ye haithens ye. Nevirtheles, God bliss ye wan an aw… aye, e’en thaim wha scribble doun thair sowel widdrin pish oan here.
As an ancient ‘Pict’ might say in their ain tongue nou foriver lost and whit sum wheen anerly o fowk nou ken… Almach, olagh gabath toiv ir Yird yr
Lorna Campbell,
For Scotland, and perhaps England, the way out of the all the confusing modern day politics is the way we supposedly came in,
And it boils down to Two simple questions.
We are in a treaty of union,
Or
We are not in a treaty of Union.
If in a 1707 treaty of union, then to be [valid ] all articles, terms and conditions must still apply today unaltered as they were, aThe law of Treaties.
Resulting officially that both old parliaments of Scotland and England ceased to exist as as stated to become the parliament of Great Britain.
The parliament of Great Britain could not alter its foundation Articles, terms and conditions of its creators otherwise it would and could not exist as a legal entity.
If a successor parliament is not bound by its predecessors decisions then Scotland too is not bound by the 1707 parliament of Scotland to the treaty of union.
Scotland is a Colony of the mind, not of facts, laws and records, or the 1707 treaty itself.
Well, James, apart from some old legal stuff falling into desuetude, I agree with you. The fact is that a treaty is the founding document that lends legitimacy to an agreement between states. Any deviating from that original Treaty should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances.
My take on the whole thing is that Westminster and Whitehall started to dismantle the Treaty Articles, one by one, from day one. Most of it was avoidable and unnecessary from any reasonable standpoint, but was done with the specific and deliberate intention to cripple Scotland and keep her imprisoned in the Union.
The Crawford and Boyle Report, commissioned by Cameron pre 2024 was carried out to ensure that Scotland remained within the Union, for example because he suspected that many Scots would vote for removal from Europe – as the case proved to be – but many more would vote to stay with the EU, with many of those being SNP members.
He realized that Scotland wanted out of the Union in numbers that suggested success in the independence referendum and loss for England in the EU referendum, he being a Remainer. I have never known for sure, but always suspected, that the independence referendum was tampered with somehow, but, of course, I could be very wrong.
We are England’s locked and barred back door against outside interference, and we have to realise that. It was once the Continental countries of France, Spain and The Netherlands. Now, it is Russia and China. I do not believe that we have ever been anything other than a bulwark against English enemies (except, perhaps, for WW II) and, now, our geopolitical situation involves America, too, which also uses us for its own ends.
We have no one now to guide our country through these rough waters of international and UK intrigue. England will do what it has always done to secure its own safety, and that will often be at our expense. Ditto with America, too, these days. Wow need someone of statesmanlike stature to navigate the troubled waters of international and national intrigue.
To peruse around the details of Scotland/ England supposed union is not only extremely amusing and interesting, but also alters ones perception of history from make belief to reality.
History is not a record of what happened, but of what someone thinks happened.
And whilst perusing we find many contradictions in the same one sided story regards the treaty of union that should not exist other than in the imaginations of Story tellers theoretical dreams.
The Great Britain Westminster parliament story of the 1707 treaty of union contradicts its its own beginnings story line.and alters its signed times line and alters nearly all the union agreements it made to retain validity,
to just acting as the parliament of England and Great Britain with no Scottish parliament, no Scottish territory or Realm of Scotland and no-monarch union after, or the since dissolving of the Scottish parliament in 1707 from the treaty of union in 1707.
A dream of English politicians, a great yarn spun to Scotlands people for over 300 years,
A devolved parliament in Scotland is power handed down from the Westminster parliament of Englands version of Great Britain without including Scotland.
Scotland holds itself captive, a prisoner without bars,
Marie,
Indeed a king that change his faith to differ than that wrote down in the treaty of union,
And serving Halal meat in the Orangey.
Halal, Kosher, not eating meat on Fridays – it’s all archaic nonsense.
link to scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk
Stu, there might be a story in finding out why the Scottish Poetry Library recruited TWELVE black Jamaican poets to spit on the white Scottish Bard for Burns Night, as well as several critical essays from white woke academics.
It’s all because Burns was going to go to Jamaica – but didn’t! All the ‘poets’ are linked one after the other there, if you scroll down. It’s a disgrace. It seems to me that attacking the National Makar undermines the very idea of having a poetry library, and National Makar, in the first place! Pure anti-white racism, and jealousy. These people should not be getting public money for their twisted revisionist ideologies.
I would recommend the first two essays actually – the one by McGinn is as you would expect a bit of a hatchet-job on Burns regarding the slave trade, but the longer and much more detailed one by Mullen is a very good repost of McGinn. It nails the contortions that some people go through to ‘prove’ complicity in the slave trade, as if they are looking to prove it rather than examining evidence dispassionately. He describes the entire premise of ‘Burns and Black Lives’ (2025 – McGinn’s book) as ‘fundamentally flawed’ and in fact, ‘confirms that he had no known material connections to chattel slavery in an era when hundreds of thousands of Scots, including many in Ayrshire, did’. The last essay by Carruthers is very weak and adds nothing (so much so, I have no idea why it was published).
I read a couple of the poems and will explore more. I take your point about the appropriateness of this project for Burns Night, but I don’t see it as racist. Scotland’s very significant plantation legacy in Jamaica is not disputed, but it nevertheless took society (and thus me), years to understand why so many Jamaican reggae musicians have Scottish surnames. We reap what we sow, and it is payback time.
interesting rumour – trump has tertiary syphilis, after 20 years it starts to rot the brain and it removes your “filters”, i.e. you
– “just come out with shit”
(cf galashiels john, the famous tourettes sufferer, who they just made a film about)
also, delusions of grandeur is a feature; this is bad for someone who is already a narcissist
if you have been “doing a bit” on epstein island, it would be easy; you wouldn’t suit up, you would go bareback, assuming epstein was running a clean operation with fresh young hoors (but they get passed around a lot)
so much for lesser evilism; joe biden was merely demented (-though he could have pressed the nuke button thinking it was the TV remote)
(bill gates caught the clap on the island and wanted to slip antibiotics to his wife on the sly … this is lowlife behaviour, but if you know his business practices, unsurprising)
epstein island
link to x.com
sexual deviance among elites, its a feature, not a bug
link to archive.ph
link to archive.ph
trannyism, a bizarre fetishistic mental illness, is thus exlained – its a trojan horse for paedophilia; if a 10 year old kid can consent to have hormones and surgery, sex with an adult is small beer
“but what if the child consents” is the usual go-to for all the nonces
Any advance on tertiary?
Anybody prepared to believe that syphilis hasn’t been curable since before President Trump was born?
Anybody prepared to believe that even in the (checks notes) hell scape that is the wilderness of US unaffordable health care, a multi-millionaire can’t afford the meds?
Maybes naw.
Good day to you too north Code,
The worlds still unrelentingly crazy even for a Sunday,
my own religion is to apply logic and questions not just on Sunday, but seven days a week,
I am hoping that one day that belief on truths and calling a spade a spade will grow to benefit all people in Scotland,
Early days as yet,
A quote from msn news:
“A woman who received a double mastectomy at the age of 16 under the guise of transgender-related healthcare was just awarded $2 million in the first successful medical-malpractice lawsuit brought by a destransitioner.
Fox Varian sued her New York-based psychologist and plastic surgeon for facilitating her gender-transition double mastectomy in 2019,…”
As expected it’s not a story the BBC are covering, doing a search there brings up news about foxes. The ball’s rolling and with most things American will surely arrive here too.
A few minor news sites also have the story and it can be found here too: swentr dot site
Another appalling scandal being deliberately hidden from us. Thanks for the info.
Confused,
It is a sexual deviance among the elites to pray on young people and children and women,
The only thing I disagree with you on,
Is calling them Elites correct?
They are just perverts and paeodophiles with money that pay [ human traffickers ] money for sex.
So not elites, but the dregs of their own Society, bringing posh moneyed people to the lowest level of Human beings, and bringing shame to those who want us to look up to them,
So called Trans- women are developing and aiding and abetting the rise of that human trafficking culture cult.
We now look down on them. All the world now looks down on the ones that used to be looked up too,
DaveL
Thats because It is medical malpractice to follow an ( ideology ) medically when practicing medicine,
“To do no harm”
Marie,
Maybe all nonsense to you or I, but the monarch of England believes in that nonsense, follows his beliefs, would have to give royal assent to be Halal meat served in the Orangey,
And does nothing to stop the mass influx of that religion and belief onto Englands shores,
Changing the old 1707 belief of England to a new paradigm of religion.
Monarchy is a religious relic – time to get rid. Religions are anti-scientific nonsense – ALL of them. The archaic dietary nonsense is irrational. Don’t get me started on the mutilation of children.
G’wan, Marie, mak a start. What with being named after the Mother of God, you must have special insight.
Is it just me or are the general public just not as interested in the Ep files as the News agencies obsession with them?
Just you, x.
“Rich people have sex” is the biggest story since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Try to see your GP the morn, get referred for psychiatric evaluation. Perhaps what ails you is treatable.
Depends on how much you support and want to see protected the transgressors eh..
Small potatoes though compared to what’s still going on in the Levant..
Oops my bad, sorry, forgot we aren’t supposed to mention that!
H McH: a judge should deliver a judgement solely on the evidence and the jury’s deliberations – which saved Alec Salmond from the machinations of the SG and the civil servants working for it, as both were labouring under wrong legal principles. Otherwise, we are living in a totalitarian state where even evidence has no place. The overwhelming evidence in the Nurse Peggie tribunal against the Fife Health Board (and the individual doctor) was skewed to suit a certain narrative.
No other conclusion could have been logically and philosophically reached by any reasonable person, yet the judgement favoured the ‘trans’/’woke’ viewpoint against all the available evidence. That kind of blatant stupidity and overturning of impartiality can lead only to an appeal and a more in-depth scrutiny of the whole affair.
I would also be asking why an individual who should have known the law in this area – because he requested permission to use the female changing room, obviously not a foregone conclusion – appeared to be held unaccountable when people are prosecuted every day, under strict liability, for crimes they may have been unaware they have committed or they knew what the law was but flouted it, anyway. Why are these people so ‘special’ that they escape every legal duty that others must obey. Just who or what is behind this ideology that is all but untouchable?
I see Sandy Brindley has stepped down.
Muted comment on controversies she has been involved in, BBC certainly isn’t making any mention of “chicks with d1cks” in highly sensitive female spaces!
Wonder why..
Good question, YL. Could it be because almost every person in positions of power and influence in this country is steeped in this ideology? Calling it a cult – it is, up to a point – will not explain sufficiently why ‘woke’ has taken such a hold today. We need to look at the industries that make a fast and big buck out of it. They have CEOs who are ‘trans’, some of them, and who also like to make big bucks. The hard left believe that they are the drivers of all this ‘woke’ stuff in its various shapes, but they are not. They are the foot soldiers and useful idiots. Always follow the money. Our politicians do!
REALITY: The latest poll (Survation, Jan 12th) shows that only 45% of Scots would vote “yes” on Indy.
Not exactly a mandate. Not even a majority.
The same poll shows that the political “movements” that Alf Baird and others here try to promote are polling a little bit better than the Monster Raving Looney Party–but not by much.
Happy anniversary all of the battle of Cockburnspath in 1400.
Another significant Scots victory whitewashed out of mainstream Anglocentric British histories..
I agree, it should be commemorated with at least a weeks public holiday with a shutdown of all non-essential services and businesses. It’s a bigger deal that Christmas and Hogmanay and should be recognised as such.
Easy tiger..
There’s more this month, you’d never be at work!
Just acknowledge the event happened (if that doesn’t strain your Scotch cringe too much for you to bear), that’ll do just fine.
A week off work; what are you backsliding youngsters like eh, any excuse to dodge work 🙂
Ah, c’mon noo, Aidan.
Maybe just a minute’s silence. To be held at a suitable time for the aficionados.
2:30 AM would be ideal.
Well exactly YL and HmH, the point is I am not sure the lack of wall-to-wall television coverage is down to some grand English conspiracy, it’s probably just that a battle occurring nearly 600 years ago isn’t all that significant for today’s news cycle, not that history isn’t important and we shouldn’t be aware of it. So I commend you YL for prompting me to reread about it!
YL;
March 22 will be a guid yin, 605 years since the Scottish army helped the French to shove it up the English at the Battle of Baugé.
Poor wee “Aidan” will be cringing while greetin’ in his pale pish English beer.
Weel said, James.
Ye’d nae doot be up fer a rumble yersel. Any day that ye dinna hae an appointment wi yer benefits claims adviser, and as long as the fechting disnae stert afore the efternoon.
Ye need yer time in yer scratcher tae sleep it aff!
Indeed James
Bauge is slated for mention, not least as heir apparent Chooky Clarence getting the chop there started the long slow process of English Royal disintegration that ultimately led to the Wars of the Roses- best notable for giving everyone else a break from their imperial pretensions as they fought amongst themselves instead..
Keep an eye out, there’s others this month though.
Got to know yer history IMO, especially when it’s been airbrushed out to solely suit the agenda of others..
YL;
Well said.
The only laws in Scotland which judges in Scotland should follow is Scots law, not that of the devolved parliament from England, nor should it have AI laws or Judgement and selective judgements
, always with a full Scottish jury for criminal cases,
The civil law in Scotland is not a legal construction in Scotland as The Scottish people are not classed as civilians.
They are (subjects within the of territory of Scotland) not Civilians.
, not specified as subjects to the Crown, nor to the crown courts, not to devolved government, and not specified as subjects to the parliament of England, or to the parliament of Great Britain, nor to the united kingdom parliament and not specified as subjects to the Monarchy,
But subjects in their on terriory and realm of Scotland.
If one believes the treaty of union articles binds England to Scotland for a trade deal,
Because thats what artcle XV111 States.
,
Which places the Civil servants in Scotland as from outside Scotland legally.
In any other discipline of the public sector you could apply for a judicial review.
Legally [ Article XV111 Private Rights ] makes Scots Sovereign in their own realm and territory within Scotland not obliged to take on Civil law cases or suits.
As Scots are not named as Civilians.
But the law of the people being subjects of their own Country/ separately and different (within Scotland)
is entirely different from the laws of England and its parliaments, the legalise law constitution of England stating that parliament is sovereign in England,
is not the same construct as Scotlands legalise Constitution. Where the people have been confirmed as Sovereign in their Country by Article XV111.
Juggling wether there is a treaty of union between England and Scotland to create the Great Britain parliament or (not as the case may be ) is highly entertaining when it involved laws of either Country alone.
Because Scotlands and Englands never meet on the jigsaw board.
Private Rights within Scotland for the evident utility ( use ) of the Scots cannot be surpassed by public Rights for the purpose of Governance.
Because XV111 Scottish Private Rights within Scotland is a unalterble and fundamental condition of the union between England and Scotland.
Treaty or no treaty in 1707 is big question,
As it not only leaves the laws of Great Britain and England parliament on the other side of the Scottish border and defines the territory and Sovereignty of Scotland people as it was, in 1707, and as it is today if the treaty of union is still standing and binding.
Unless the rest of Englands and Britains parliaments dissolved the Scottish parliament from the 1707 treaty in 1707 which would have enabled it to go ahead and create the Great Britain parliament,
Oh wait they did do that.
Great reset,…
Scotland got rebuffed and dissolved from the parliament of GB in 1707.
So Scotland returned and retained its own laws and territory regardless.
link to sundaypost.com
“A senior MSP is calling for an investigation into the influence of LGBT Youth Scotland in schools after claims a schoolboy was groomed by the charity’s workers.”
“Following a Sunday Post exposé, the charity – which provides educational support and consultation with the Scottish Government over LGBT input in schools – was defunded by the BBC charity Children In Need. It came after we revealed paedophile convictions of its former CEO James Rennie, who sexually assaulted a baby, and Andrew Easton, a volunteer who helped author a schools guide made available to youngsters across Scotland.”